Hi
I do object to any move to revert the new article bullets to numbered bullets. I do admit that my explanation in the edit summary was not thorough and though out but as you know they are meant to be brief. But I do believe that keeping bullets instead of numbers is a better outcome. The bullets make the overall portal flow better, the sections above utilise bullets, keeping consistency is important in a portal. The numbered bullets are not necessary as the article names are followed by the date of creation. Though i will alter the hidden instructions to be more descriptive and clearer as to the order.
Regards Hossen27 (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Pdfpdf
sorry for not responding to you yet, work and family commitment have prevented it. I will respond in detail in the next few day.. Hossen27 (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for not replying sooner. The simple answer is I forgot.
The main resaons as to why I believe the Bullets shoudf remain and not be replaced by numbers is:
If you need further clarification on this please let me know.
On a side note I added a new section to the portal the other day (Featured and Good Content), What do you think?
Also I have started a portal for the Royal Australian Navy (Portal:Royal Australian Navy). I intend to create a portal for all three services over time. Any input on the new portal would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Hossen27 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comments sound fair. By adding the article under the LGBT project I was simply intending to flag up to readers that there are aspects of the article that are of interest to those interested in LGBT issues - so that it's easy to spot from a first glance. I isn't my intention to unbalance the article; so please do revert if it looks a bit heavy-handed. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments (which have actually been constructive throughout). I haven't been on wikipedia long so don't know how it all works (hence confusion over the wikiproject thing); but really appreciate the effort to provide feedback. I wish everyone was as civilised and helpful as you! Contaldo80 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the question on my talk page. His initials are DOD. If you think that's not appropriate, feel free to revert it. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Lack of sleep is no excuse for not editing :-) There is a 'proper' tag for articles under construction, which I've added to this article. Could I also draw your attention to the manual of style for disambig pages - specifically MOS:DAB#Individual entries - "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line" - all the ones on this page have two... unless that's something you're going to sort out :-) CultureDrone (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Pdf (you abbreviated my username to last part...can you guess whether I'm using the first or last part of yours ?), I'm doing this at work (ssshhh!) so VOIP probably isn't a good idea right now ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, ok - I'll see about creating a basic template article, but it may be a day or two - just had a heap load of work (sounds like Tonto there) dumped on me, so it won't be straight away... The 'Meanwhile, back at the ranch' phrase seems to have soemthing of an ambiguous origin - type it into Google and it allegedly goes back to silent films.... CultureDrone (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Aha..I'm not falling for that one ! Besides, I read Terry Pratchett ;-p :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't make the change to which you refer - however, I can see the rationale behind it. As I understand it, the template was only ever intended to cover the common ranks - not every rank. On that basis, we excluded Chief Petty Officer as it was a type of Petty Officer. I do take your point that the current arrangement suggests a direct equivalence between General and Air Marshal when they are only generically equivalent. Perhaps a footnote would fix this. Greenshed (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look, I think my concern was the large amount of red links were making it appear very untidy, so I separated them, but feel free to revert it. Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at the information on Wikipedia:Red link which stresses the problems of red links on disambigution pages, where the article is not going to be written imminently. However, it also says that they shouldn't often be deleted if they are already there. The usual date order might be best, but there is the issue of those named 'John Norreys'. All of these are written about as 'Norris' and 'Norreys', but more commonly as 'Norris', so I would prefer them to be integrated with the rest. Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy with them as they are; that is what I chose originally. I suggested the usual date order, by which I meant chronological order, because you questioned it. With a reasonably small number of articles, as there are for 'John Norris', I don't think it matters too much whichever way you put it. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've always been more of a science fiction sort of guy, so I wasn't a great one for Laramie / The Virginian / Bonanza / Little House on the Prarie (delete as appropriate) (ok, the last one wasn't really a cowboy show, but it's the right sort of era...). That having been said, black and white anything is a little before my time....just !
Re the redlinks / place stubs - I see no reason why they couldn't be created as redirects and sorted out afterwards - assuming that there really is a place called, for example, Windy Point in Conejos County that exists on a map, rather than as an amusing name coined by a group of high-school students one evening after one too many beers.
My stiff upper lip is out for starching :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your invite to contribute to this article. I know absolutely nothing about the guy but will take up the challenge! Might be fun! Contaldo80 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BadcoeMedalsSmall.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL))
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those.
NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you see it that way, particualrly with the date unlinking, the best way to make sure I got them all was to do a revert - and in the lead you had left duplicate info in the first and last paragraphs, and (as it seemed to me) made it a bit disjointed. As I understand it, just saying "to date" is discouraged, because it's immediately rendered incorrect when the VC (Australia) is awarded and so on. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I do that is because it standardizes the articles and makes it easier to do edits using the find and replace function in AWB. Rather that have 10 different versions of breaks that I would have to search for I make them all <br/> plus this is cleaner html code than <br>. As far as the == it just makes the article cleaner if the section headers don't have a bunch of spaces in it. With all that said I usually don't make those kinds of changes unless I am already changes something else more major and I believe I changed some other items on both those 2 pages. I hope that helps.--
I see them both as being tangentially related to money. Having two very short paragraphs in the lead is distracting and breaks up the flow of the prose. As such, it is for an aesthetic issue as much as for an association issue. Frankly, in my opinion, it looks better now from a prose point of view. Woody (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the refs which were already in the article, we've already got refs for his decorations there in the form of the original London Gazettes, and also from his personnel file and other sources. In this particular case, it might make more sense to reuse those, rather than using It's An Honour. David Underdown (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For enduring long discussions, late at night, and in spite of total confusion not getting frustrated, and ultimately turning it all into a positive experience with positive, albeit unrelated, results, I award you this Barnstar of Good Humour. Cheers! Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 13:34, 6 Aug 2008 (UTC) |
Although I doubt it's what you meant, I agree that there's "spelling, and [then there's] American spelling". ;-)
(I couldn't resist - the devil made me do it.)
Sometimes I forget WP is bi-lingual; my apologies. I have gotten used to your dislike of the letter "u", but I just can't get used to the fact that you guys don't double the final consonant before the vowel of the suffix - it just screams "wrong" to me. That "fueled" is going to make me cringe every time I look at the article. Oh well, I guess that's one of the joys of being a minority. Next time I edit, I'll choose bi-lingual words! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify:
TREKphiler hit me ♠ 15:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I assume you meant Commodore Shalders when you sent that message? I learnt of his retirement from the Navy Newspaper which had an article about his career, retirement and the successor to his position. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC) p.s. I already knew what ADC meant.
What do you think of this one Image:Atlantic Star ribbon.png - compared to this? PalawanOz (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey PDF, thanks for writing. I really only wrote (?-?) for you, because I knew you'd answer the question marks. Is that tricky? And you added info to the infobox! Hah! Bait works, bait works... hope you and your editing is going well! Hopefully we'll bump into one another again soon. • Freechild'sup? 07:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that when I remove INCORRECT ribbons you insist on re-adding them with a comment along the lines that I am wrong? I happen to know that the vast majority of the ribbons added are either not complete or are incorrect. Neville Howse was not awarded the King's South Africa Medal; I have seen his medal set and that was not among them. Thomas Axford was not eligible for the 1939-1945 Star, yet when I removed the ribbon you insisted on re-adding it, and besides that fact both Howse's and Axford's ribbons are incomplete. I also did not appreciate the comment you left in the edit summary when you corrected someone's initial mistake in the article on Emile Dechaineux; why would I correct the ribbon when I do not support the venture? I would appreciate it if you would cease from leaving demeaning comments in edit summaries and actually investigate if a person received or was eligible for certain medals before adding them to pages, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I am do not believe I am a spoilt child, I am simply an extremely stubborn and passionate person, and it is comments like that that I feel as if I am being personally attacked, again that might not have been how you meant it to be but it is how I feel.
From User talk:David Underdown
Sorry about that, when I worked on that article I was in the midst of a major effort to fix Gazette refs which had all been broken as a result of a revamp of the Gazette website. I was sometimes a little hasty and made a few cut-and-paste errors on the way. I think I've fixed them all now. For future reference, the most usual cause of the error you were seeing is that the "supp=yes" parameter hasn't been set when it should have been (or vice-versa). To check if this is the case, in the url, find "&type=ArchivedIssuePage" and change "Issue" to "Supplement" (or vice-versa) and reload the page. You should then see that it loads correctly - amend the template in the article accordingly. You are less likely to come across the case where an additional parameter needs to be set instead in the template, "notarchive=yes" - that then changes the url "&type" to either "Issue" or "Supplement", rather than the values listed above. This only applies to Gazettes post-2000, and of course Australians are now less likely to be receiving British honours. The other possibility is that there's a typo in the page number. The easiest way to check this is if you know taht the minimal parameters required in the url are "pdf="issue number, and "&Geotype=London" - if you trim the urldown to that, it will take you to the first page of the issue, and you can work your way through from there to see what the page numbers should be. Just occasionally, one does hit on a page which generates an error even though all the parameters are correct - but in these instances you still get the navigation pane and are usually able to view all the other pages in the relevant issue.
With the ref for his DSO, I had obviously copied the basic details of the relevant honours list from User:David Underdown/Honours where I've slowly been collating a lsit of all the honours lists (useful if you know the year an honour was awarded, but the search isn't finding it for some reason), and forgotten to update the page numbers to the relevant range for the DSOs, rahter than CMGs which is what the pages lsited actually covered. David Underdown (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Covers Covers should be integrated into the article about the song, not split up by release (e.g. Because the Night.) I agree that this one doesn't look very appealing, but I suppose that is a matter of ((wikify))ing. Please post on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your note. My frustration was not with you, but with the anon editor(s) whose past edits to CBE caused the problem in the first place. I hadn't realised until yesterday that there were various other pages with alternative punctuations of the same. When I tidied them all up, I wanted to leave a robust policy-backed edit summary so that my work wouldn't get reverted. However, I apologise that my words appeared to criticise the previous editor, in this case yourself.
I'm not sure which edit of mine you thought caused a problem in the first place, but never mind, we agree that it's as it should be now. Best wishes, Fayenatic (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok fixed it up ill make sure ill be more specfific next time. Pattav2 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Copied from no:Brukerdiskusjon:Ohedland#En:_Norris:
"Companies: Added T. Norris & Son" - Why? 114.30.100.5 21. aug 2008 kl. 13:28 (CEST) (En: User:pdfpdf)
Adding [[Category:Odd Fellows]] seems like a good idea, but why remove [[Category:Fraternal and service organizations]]? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Just click on one of the Category links at the bottom of the page and you will be taken to that Category's page. You should see a list of all sub-categories and articles that have been placed in that category. At the bottom of the page you will see Category links, just like an article has. The category is a sub-category of all of the categories listed (and of course, all the categories that THEY are a sub-category of). You can work your way right up the hierarchy of categories, and back down a related branch. It's a great way to explore Wikipedia.--Editor2020 (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf, the cleanup of external links from the Oddfellows page was entirely routine, WP:EL is very clear about linking to specific sites from a general topic, and, as is applicable in this case, advocates adding a global or directory site from which more specific or individual links can be found. Links to individual groups or divisions would only be appropriate from an article which is specifically about that chapter or group. I'm an administrator and a member of the external links project, please ask if you have any further questions. Having dealt with many, many similar issues in the past, I understand your edit summary comments were purely through surprise and perhaps unfamiliarity with the guideline in question, although I would recommend that you check out any relevant guidelines or policies before reverting an edit which has been accompanied by a rationale and a link to a guideline or policy in the edit summary, in this case my edit timed at 16:51, August 23, 2008. Deiz talk 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Pdfpdf, you have my sympathies, bullying is an issue on WP. Linkboyz (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a favour please? Could you read all of Talk:Oddfellows?
Also, could you refrain from bullying me please? I'm somewhat taken aback by your accusations; in 18 months and 6,000 edits, no-one has previously either accused me of incivility, nor threatened to block me. To me, it feels like you are abusing your power simply because I have a different point-of-view to you. No doubt you see it differently - that's what different points-of-view are about. Please advise how I would go about complaining, and to whom, that you appear to be abusing your power? With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
While I'm at it, could you kindly explain what is "incivil" about: "It's easy to be disparaging. It requires one or more of will, effort and thought to actually add something to WP. If you don't like what's there, expend some of your own will, effort and thought."? It seems very polite to me. With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pdfpdf, the cleanup of external links from the Oddfellows page was entirely routine, WP:EL is very clear about linking to specific sites from a general topic, and, as is applicable in this case, advocates adding a global or directory site from which more specific or individual links can be found. Links to individual groups or divisions would only be appropriate from an article which is specifically about that chapter or group.
I'm an administrator
and a member of the external links project,
please ask if you have any further questions.
Having dealt with many, many similar issues in the past, I understand your edit summary comments were purely through surprise and perhaps unfamiliarity with the guideline in question, although I would recommend that you check out any relevant guidelines or policies before reverting an edit which has been accompanied by a rationale and a link to a guideline or policy in the edit summary, in this case my edit timed at 16:51, August 23, 2008. Deiz talk 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. I happened to notice your edit summary on the Oddfellows page. The article is not written in the style expected of an encyclopedia, and I can assure you that at least one or two maintenance tags would be appropriate on the page. The ((weasel)) tag was accompanied by a detailed rationale,
and ((tone))
and ((wikify))
would also be valid. What brings me here, however, is your use of edit summaries. There is no merit - at least in terms of encouraging useful contributions to the encyclopedia - in making sharp, sarcastic and / or asinine remarks in edit summaries, especially to good faith edits that address real concerns.
By all means remove the tag and explain why if you feel there is good reason to do so
{even better, follow your own sermon and do some editing},
or contact an editor with whom you would like to discuss an editing issue further on their talk page, but if I see another summary of the kind you recently left I will block you for incivility.
Although I am not personally acquainted with him as an editor, even a cursory glance at his user page will reveal that Garzo is an editor and administrator in extremely high standing, and one who can be trusted to make edits that have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Deiz talk 15:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As you well know, your edit summary was not polite
and the editor you disagree with had a genuine concern and the best intentions when adding the tag to the page.
Why not just say "OK, I agree I was a bit hasty, a bit sharp tongued and the article does need some work"?
I'm aware of your service to Wikipedia, I just find it hard to believe that all of this is not self-evident to an established editor in this situation.
By all means ask the opinions of others, for example at WP:AN, where they will tell you exactly the same thing - don't make hasty reverts, don't use edit summaries to make sharp comments,
and try to take it in good faith
when others point out genuine problems with articles that you edit frequently and have a strong personal interest in. Deiz talk 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for advising me of your opinion. You will probably have noticed by now that I only agree with small portions of it. I really don't understand why this is such a big problem for you. I asked you quite a number of questions. I don't think you answered any of them. User:Linkboyz said: "Some good questions." You reverted that. (Why?) It being your talk page, I will give you the opportunity to have "the last word" if that's what you want/need; I will not be contributing anything further to this discussion, and I would appreciate it if you would stop bullying and threatening me and abusing your power as an administrator. Goodbye. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)