User talk:PalawanOz/Archive

Archive talk page

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Aviation WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPAVIATION Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of child projects and task forces that focus on specific topics and aircraft types.
We're developing a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the experienced project members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sydney - Help with Eastern Suburbs Railway

Hi PalawanOz - thanks for joining WP Sydney. I noticed that you said you were interested on contributing articles for the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. I'm looking for someone to take some photos of the railway stations on the Eastern Suburbs line - at the moment we don't have photos of either Kings Cross or Edgecliff stations - if you have a camera and are able to take shots similar to those in the infobox at Bondi Junction railway station, Sydney any help would be much appreciated. Thanks! JRG 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Kings X photo. Looks great. JRG 13:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of St John Ribbon

Hello! Thanks for putting the ribbon of the VOSJ on the page. I'm not sure it is entirely necessary, though, as the actual ribbon is shown immediately above it in the photograph. Would you be terribly offended if I removed your addition?--Eva ^bd 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Australian Antarctic Medal ribbon.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Australian Antarctic Service Medal ribbon.png. The copy called Image:Australian Antarctic Service Medal ribbon.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 23:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts

I just thought I'd drop you a quick note to express appreciation for the excellent work that you have been doing on the various decorations and medals articles. The lack of consistent Australia coverage has always been a notable gap, thanks to you it is substantially filled. I've been rather distracted from this area recently, but Canada is the next big one for work I think.

Cheerio, Xdamr^talk 09:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the work you did to an article i created. Crested Penguin 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project tags

Hi - on one of the medal page talk pages I recently put both the Oz military and the Oz milhist tags - I realised after that I might be over doing it - have you any clues as to whether if its already an orders project tagged article - whether the duplication is useful or not helpful? cheers Satu Suro 01:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - trawling a number of cat pages at the moment - will keep that in mind - thanks for responding! cheers Satu Suro 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw please feel free to modify the tags that I might have placed on the orders/cat pages - and if you could it would be much appreciated if you find one I havent uncovered that is definitely an Australian provenance - please could you throw a {{WP Australia|class=NA}} tag on it if it is a cat page thanksSatu Suro 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

PalawanOz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

203.10.224.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ReflectTheFacts". The reason given for ReflectTheFacts's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Sock of blocked user User:DavidYork71".

Blocking administrator: Orderinchaos (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: It appears you are once again able to edit. If the problem reappears, post a new unblock request. —dgies^t_c 06:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request - again!!

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

There was a miscommunication. You appear to work at the same place as a user who has been banned, which is the reason for the original autoblock. However there are no other similarities, so I have unblocked you. There may be some trouble from the autoblock until I can get that sorted out. Thatcher131 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Thatcher131 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be unfair, but there is logic in it: You were using the same IP as one of his sockpuppets. —dgies^t_c 01:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work for an Australian government department. Our network runs through a common IP (as best as I understand it). Therefore there are probably about 60,000 people who have this IP address.... given that I am not going anywhere near DavidYork71's areas of 'interest', why would I be accused of being a sockpuppet???

unblock request - again x 2

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 203.10.224.60 lifted or expired. Sorry for the trouble! Request handled by: – Luna Santin (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your have

email Satu Suro 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC) apologies - further adhoc emails to clutter the inbox Satu Suro 12:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Service Medal 1939-45

Hello. I note the title for the above article incorporates the dates 1939-45. Perhaps you may be better informed, but my recollection is that the name of the medal is simply the 'Australia Service Medal' - no dates. My view is that article names should follow the actual medal name as closely as possible; dates should only form a part of the article name if they are a) part of the medal name, or b) needed to disambiguate identically (or nearly identically) named medals (eg the long line of India General Service Medals).

Cheerio, Xdamr^talk 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection doesn't seem to be too faulty after all - both the Medals Yearbook and British Battles and Medals omit the dates in the title.

Xdamr^talk 23:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star of Temasek categories

Yeah I noticed that feature later, which didnt exist before. We dont have a habit of classifying redirects because of that, but now I know its possible through you! :)--Huaiwei 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Ind...

Absolute pain that art - just a list of equipment - have looked at australian article - excellent example to follow - will take time to tidy it all up, sigh Satu Suro 05:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Honours Category

Apologies for the revert, but the page was blanked without a summary. I won't revert it if you blank the page again, but may I suggest leaving an edit summary in future? Tom::Leave a message 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Medals Infoboxes

I understand the thoughts you put forth on this, and I would like to clarify my thought process. I originally was going to include the entire Order of Precedence in the higher/lower positions, but when I looked at it, I found that a lot of awards were old British Empire awards, or were no longer awarded. So, that's why I only included the current Australian awards in my edits. But as you pointed out, that isn't correct. That's why I am now going back through and updating the entire list to make them all correct. If you have any other suggestions, I realize that you are the keeper of these pages, so I will be happy to work with you on anything. Cassius1213 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cross for Australia

I have reverted your formatting edits to Victoria Cross for Australia. [1] A full explanation is placed on the talk page itself but in summary i believe it does not conform to Wikipedia:Embedded list. Any discussion and comments are welcome on my talk page. Thanks Woodym555 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Indonesia...

Hi there. I removed a lot of stuff from that article. Not just because of a lack of sources, but because it is essentially a big list of inventory. It would be nice to have a *well referenced* article about its history, organisation, criticisms, significance in politics, etc rather than simply a list. I also reverted your revert of my deletion as the references don't stack and it is was listy. Hope you don't mind. Drop me a line anytime. kind regards. Merbabu 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:SAF Long Service and Good Conduct (20 Years) Medal ribbon.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SAF Long Service and Good Conduct (20 Years) Medal ribbon.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Fridae logo.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADM Ribbon

Just had a look at your ADM ribbon. Good image, but the shade of red used misrepresents the actual shade - any chance of lightening it up? As a guide, the image of the full medal is a better approximation, although it is a smidgen darker and less vivid than the genuine article (getting the correct shade in photos/scans can be difficult). Cheers. AusTerrapin 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you're right, is a bit a bit dull - will sparkle it up a bit PalawanOz 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:CAF Geoff Shepherd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CAF Geoff Shepherd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Nursing Service Cross (Australia) medal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Nursing Service Cross (Australia) medal.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1914 Star.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:1914 Star.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[sic]

Hello there. I'm not aware of any wikipedia-specific guidance on the use of sic, I simply went with my own instinct that this should not be used unless we are dealing with a verbatim quotation (which seems to be borne out by Sic). So far as the New Zealand General Service Medal 1992 (Non-Warlike) goes that seems to be fairly definitive (at least until I find the time to add some content to the 'Clasps' sections!), though I am less sure re. the Meritorious Unit Citation page.

Are those direct quotations in the 'Recipients' section or are they just a précis? If they are quotations then you could possibly make a case for 'sic', but then this all depends on how unusual a phrase 'Arabian Gulf' is. Although not widespread I think that we can safely say that it has currency with a significant minority and as such is not 'unusual'. Further we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names to bear in mind, which bars editors from editing an article solely to mess about with disputed names.

Taken in aggregate, I think that these are enough to preserve the status quo - though ironically I agree that the 'Arabian Gulf' usage is a lot of nonsense, but there you go...

Xdamr^talk 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe MUC quote is a direct quote of the citation - and I agree that the term "Arabian Gulf" is not unusual - just controversial (with some people) - now if we had a whole bunch of Iranian editors, I am sure the edit wars would be jumping out all over the place. PalawanOz 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1914 Star

Reply left re black and white v. colour images. Best wishes, --Xdamr^talk 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thai_navy_O5.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thai_navy_O5.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Cross for Australia

I have taken this article to FAC and a question came up which i have been told you might be able to answer. I asked Xdamr whether he knew and he doesn't but siggested i ask you. Is the VC for OZ made and kept separately to the "Imperial" VC. Are they just kept in a big pool to be taken out when needed? I have looked at various sources and cannot find an answer. I was hoping that maybe you could shed some light on it? If not don't worry, just thought i would ask. Thanks. Woodym555 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the intention would be (when we finally get to having a VC-4-Oz awarded) that the raw material would be sourced from the same stock as the Imperial VC, and the medal would be cast by Hancocks as well. I do not think they cast them in advance.... will hunt around and see what some experts I know of say (might take a day or two). PalawanOz 02:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take as much time as you need/want. Thanks for trying. Woodym555 20:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source tells me that "if an award of the VC for Australia is made then the cross will be sourced from the UK (as CPL Apiata's cross recently was). Whether one is provided from MOD stock or whether Hancocks casts a medal especially would depend on the circumstances at the time." Unfortunately, whilst he is definitely in an authoritative position to give this answer, he cannot provide a reference for this statement (and is reluctant to be quoted directly on Wikipedia).PalawanOz 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i understand. It backs up what i thought. I will try to get it sourced somehow as part of my look for more content. Thanks for all your efforts. Woodym555 17:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to know about the decision process leading up to its creation? I cannot find anything on hansard, and it would be good to have in the article. Thanks. Woodym555 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea.png. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. But|seriously|folks 07:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medals

Yes, I was trying to help clean up a major copyright problem left behind by Husnock, who has since left us. While a lot of the medals may or may not have been in the public domain, he had uploaded other people's pictures and drawings of them which would be protected by copyright. He listed virtually no sources. After extensive discussions (including here), I assisted in the cleanup, which is still ongoing. If there are any further questions, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_obverse.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_obverse.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. But|seriously|folks 03:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UN Korea

Reply left on my talk page. (I initially left a short comment here as well, but it was nothing of any consequence and was simply duplicated from my talk page). --Xdamr^talk 13:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Distinguished Conduct Medal (UK).png

Thanks for uploading Image:Distinguished Conduct Medal (UK).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that you spotted this. Perhaps now is the time to zip through all the NZ images and add this FU rationale? I'll try and make a start on this tonight. Incidentally, from Monday I'm not likely to be around on Wikipedia for the next while - probably 7/8 weeks or so before I'll have time to do anything more than reply to the odd message on my talk page.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 12:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying) (UK).png

Thanks for uploading Image:Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying) (UK).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rowan Moffitt.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VC for OZ help

Hey PalawanOz, the Victoria Cross for Australia FAC nomination has become bogged down due to a lack of information on the discussions that led to the award. I am hoping that you might have some information or a source? Thanks, and any comments would be welcome on the nomination page. Thanks again. Woodym555 18:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Angus_Houston.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Angus_Houston.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rette tast 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADM Bloggs, RAN

FYI: At CDF you reverted an anonymous user's edit and said: "'RAN' is standard after naval ranks". Prior to the anonymous edit, I had posted a question at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ADM Bloggs RAN ?"; I imagine that the anonymous edit was a reaction to my question.
Also, I have made some comments on that talk page about your reversion. I look forward to "hearing" your response.
Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I will have made some comments soon ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
(Comments have been added to "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#ADM Bloggs RAN ?" - Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Woo hoo!! This is warming up! Thanks for making comments "congruent" to mine, though I realise that wasn't your intention. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I'm not exactly sure _why_ it is warming up.... the real-life standards seem pretty clear and concise, with not a lot of wiggle-room in them... and really, why the fuss?? PalawanOz (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Maybe I should back off. I have to admit I was enjoying myself, but I also have to admit that there really isn't any good reason to let this person's comments mobilise me to a full-scale attack. OK, I will exercise some restraint. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Thanks.)[reply]

Well - keep your powder dry as the good Rear Admiral Bloggs (, RAN) would say... PalawanOz (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boom boom! (Lol!!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear: "Oops, I did it again." Perhaps it's time to put the bins out and go to bed ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have gone quiet ... Pdfpdf 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SXmasthead.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SXmasthead.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DFSM on Australian Honours Order of Precedence

Putting the ribbons-with-rosettes on the Australian Honours Order of Precedence "seemed like a good idea at the time", but I'm now questioning that judgement and thinking of either reverting it, or putting some sort of footnote.

On the one hand, none of the other medals show "bars", "rosettes" or "stars".
On the other hand, "lots" of the current batch of senior military have the DFSM with rosettes.
And on a third hand, it is explained more than adequately on the DFSM page.

What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little unsure myself about including those.... like you mention, it is covered on the medal page itself - I included them there for that purpose. We don't show images of multiple bars on the other medals (eg, VC, GC) which have a particular device on the ribbon. I would lean towards removing them from the Australian Honours Order of Precedence page. PalawanOz (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for removing them. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Fed stars?

edit to remove "+" from 40 yr medal - 45 yrs service would have two Fed Stars

Employing basic arithmetic, I take it that your edit comment implies that 4 rosettes = 35-39yrs, 1 Fed star = 40-44yrs, 2 Fed stars = 45-49yrs, etc.?

I pretty sure regulations require retirement by age 65yrs, so 3 stars isn't possible, so we can eliminate that from the discussion straight off.

I'd be pretty surprised if regs allowed service after age 60yrs, which would make 2 stars academic too, wouldn't it?

But if 45+ yrs is possible, my interpretation of "although the fifth and subsequent clasps are indicated by a small Federation Star" is was "the fifth and subsequent clasps are all indicated by the one small Federation Star".

Hmmm. On writing this, the source now seems ambiguous. I now don't know what I think!

It's my suspicion that 2 Fed stars can't happen - that's why no such ribbon appears on the DFSM page.

You know, you'd think I'd have better things to do on a Saturday night, wouldn't you! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) 2 Fed stars could certainly happen - particular in the Navy, with the early entry ages that occurred back in the olden days (eg, 13 yo recruits in the 40's and 50's). Also, retiring ages are changing - now 60yr, could be 65yo sometime in the future. So - possible, but very rarely.

Yes, I agree with your line of reasoning, but what about interpretation of the regulation? I see it was you who created all the ribbons with rosettes and stars on the DFSM page. Is there any particular reason why you didn't create a ribbon with 2 stars? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosgrove and DFSM

Got any idea how to verify if Cosgrove got a Fed star, or if he has 4 rosettes? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - his bio here indicates he joined RMC in 1965, and retired in July 2005. Entry to RMC for a degree would have been in January, so I guess he would have had 40 years and 6 months of service. This photo here to my eye looks like he has a single embellishment on his DFSM... so I'm going to be bold and change his entry to reflect a Fed Star awarded. PalawanOz (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read a similarly worded bio with the same dates and wondered "When in 1965?". I agree with your "early 1965" conclusion; even if he didn't start till Feb or March, it's still more than 40 years, so I support and applaud your boldness!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, that's a photo of the signing of the DMO/ADF/AusDoD MOA (Gee, doesn't Defence love TLAs!) taken prior to 1 July 2005. (i.e. prior to DMO becoming a "prescibed agency", and prior to Cosgrove's retirement.) So I'd say that definitely supports your reasoning!

BTW: Original appearance at:

Photo: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/04-05/dar/img/cdfsecdmo_lg.jpg

Context: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/04-05/dar/06_02_newera_spf.htm

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosgrove and Tong-il Medal

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-heroes/cosgrove.htm says it is Tong-il medal from the Republic of Korea. It seems the colour match on Image:Tong-il Medal (South Korea) ribbon.png is not very good ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's ambiguously worded. What I was saying (ambiguously) was the colour match on the various photos of Cosgrove and the Image:Tong-il Medal (South Korea) ribbon.png is not very good. The colour match with http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-heroes/cosgrove.htm is much closer.

The colour match I did for the Tong-il medal was based on several pics on various sites Diggerhistory, Gen Pave presentation, Gen Casey presentation, all of which show it to be more 'pink' than 'red'

Agreed.

- Cosgrove's official portrait did seem a little washed out (for colours), so I wasn't depending on that so much.

That was probably a wise decision.

If you find a good resolution shot of the Korean ribbon, I am happy to amend the image I created. PalawanOz (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with what you've done. (Now, if you could get the ADF to re-colour-balance Cosgrove's official portrait ... ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosgrove and Légion d'honneur

Further to other discussion on this page, I agree that the ribbon should not be on the bar, so I'm going to split the table and title the 2nd table "other awards". And I'll stick the Houston ribbon in there until the actual ribbon can be determined.

BTW: There's no medal or ribbon for Australian of the year, is there? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - not as far as the published Order of Precedence is concerned. And no, I dont believe there is an unofficial one either - this page just talks about a trophy. PalawanOz (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ta. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at 2002 picture and Légion d'honneur#Classes and insignia, it looks a bit like Image:Legion Honneur GC ribbon.svg, but the Légion d'honneur article says The badge of the Légion is a five-armed "Maltese Asterisk", and that "thing" on Cosgove's left pocket looks like it might have six arms.
What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that The Order has a maximum quota of 75 Grand Cross ... . Seems a bit unlikely he'd be initially appointed to the highest class which only has a maximum of 75 members, doesn't it? In which case, what is that "thing" on his left pocket? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'star' insignia you can see in this pic is actually the Korean Tong-il medal as shown here. PalawanOz (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is! Thanks for that. Cheers,Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (So we're no closer on the grade of Légion d'honneur!)[reply]

Confirmed as the rank of "Officer" in the Légion d'honneur PalawanOz (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! How did you confirm it? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good source (someone who used to work with him) :) PalawanOz (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grã-Cruz Ordem do Infante D. Henrique (GCIH)

Hi, (me again). You seem to be a "creator extrordinaire" of ribbons. How do you feel about creating one for the GCIH? (It looks pretty simple?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ordens.presidencia.pt/ordem_nacional_infante.htm
http://www.ordens.presidencia.pt/ordem_nacional_infante_insignia.htm

It was on my list of things to do today :)

What impecable timing you have!

One thing though - I have not seen any pics of Cosgrove wearing either the French or Portuguese awards - even the latest one I referred to above taken in 2006.

Actually, that photo was taken mid-2005

Possibly more recent photo is http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5274989,00.jpg, but they're not in that one either.

As a result, I removed the French award from his ribbon bar.

Yes, that's appropriate.

Also - I have not been able to confirm the grade of his Légion d'honneur

Neither have I.

- it changes the ribbon design. PalawanOz (talk) 01:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was (probably unjustifiably) bold, assumed (probably poorly) that it would be the same as Angus Houston's, and copied it from there! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Too many conversations going on at once, including my wife telling me to get off the computer and fix the laundry door! I'll reply later.
A short summary of all answers would be something like "Yes, I agree with you." Pdfpdf (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Replies interleved above. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosgrove

(Am I the only person who "talks" to you?)
Thanks for moving the picture - they are the same reasons I put it up even higher in the first place. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better a small amount of friendly chat and consultation than heaps of abuse! :) PalawanOz (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol!! Too true!! Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Molan

Guess who? (Unfortunately, no prizes for correct answer.)
Jim would have to be my favourite General. All those guys 2* & above are pretty cluey and a delight to talk to (but I have to admit, mostly you listen!!), but Jim is exceptional. (I find it a pity that "those in power" don't seem to agree with me. You ought to hear him talking about his time in the MEAO - the Yanks recognised his abilities!!) So thanks for the ribbons. I was getting around to it, (really, I was), but hadn't got there yet. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Gillespie

What are those last two ribbons? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNTAG (link) and UNTAET (link)... with a good pic here to help :) PalawanOz (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jeffery

Badge on left pocket & KStJ

RE: http://www.gg.gov.au/img/gallery/items/758.jpg

He doesn't seem to be wearing ribbons for AC, CVO or KStJ.
- The AC is around his neck
- Presumably the badge on his left pocket is CVO? If not, where's the CVO?
- If the badge isn't CVO, then presumably it's KStJ (but it's the wrong shape), so where's the KStJ?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbons for the Order of Australia aren't worn separately from the medal - the AC is a 'Neck order', and hence, not worn on the left breast.

The CVO is also a 'Neck order' - he can't wear both at once, and the AC takes precedence.

The star on his left pocket is actually the same as for a Knight of the Order of Australia - as seen in this pic. In his case however, it is signifying his status as the Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order.

It seems I'm not too good on pinning down those "badges on the left pocket".

(BTW: I eventually found the CVO badge - it looks more like the KStJ badge than the AK badge!) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The KStJ seems to be missing in action - and I haven't seen him wear it in any other pic. I also note that the 2008 Year Book does not list the post-nominal (although it does for other GG's). More investigation required methinks. PalawanOz (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Medal & clasp

RE: National Medal, who has he been associated with for 25 years? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re National Medal - must be for his ADF service. The bar is (just) visible in the pic you reference. PalawanOz (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some reading, I guess you must be right, but it puzzles me; I thought that's what the DFSM (plus clasps/rosettes) is for.

The information is ambiguous. e.g. National Medal (Australia) says: In 1982 the defence forces withdrew from the National Medal, with the introduction of the Defence Force Service Awards. However, it then goes on to say: Even now, however, defence force service can be counted towards the National Medal under certain circumstances.

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/national_medal.cfm says: The National Medal recognises long and diligent service by members of recognised organisations that help the community during times of crisis.

To confuse further, Jeffery's DFSM says 35-40 years service, but his NM says 25-30 years. Adding to the confusion, Cosgrove's DFSM says 40-45 years service, but his NM says 15-25.

More investigation required methinks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DistinguishedServiceCrossRibbon.jpg

I just completed the FURs, only to find you'd de-linked and relinked to Image:Distinguished Service Cross (UK) ribbon.png!
So now you have a choice!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that :) It was a very easy ribbon for me to whip up, and place on Commons (vice the original which is on English Wikipedia). The style/format/look of the one I did will be consistent with all the others that I have done for the Australian and New Zealand Honours Orders of Precedence pages, so will go with that for those. PalawanOz (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you were able to create a new ribbon more quickly than I could create the FURs, isn't it!
And yes, your new creation can be used with much less overhead. (I just thought you might find the scenario amusing.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davyd Thomas

Hi, you have placed information on Rear Admiral Davyd Thomas' page stating that he is now Deputy Chief of the Navy, I am curious to know are there any references to back this claim? I am still receiving information stating that Rear Admiral Russell Crane is still DCN, so are you sure Thomas has assumed this position? Or do you mean he will once the Defence Leaders change over on 6th July? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an online source for this.... take my word for it? I am sure it will come online shortly (perhaps when they do the big update in July). PalawanOz (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that just earlier when I visited the page as, of course, the new Defence Leaders assumed their positions today. Nice work, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]