User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive08

RE:Portal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

The trend of the portal is to use bullets over other simiar listing methods. The Selected anniversaries, Did you know..., News and WikiProjects sections all utilise the bullets. Therefore I believe that keeping the bullets in the New articles section will create a more consistent look to the portal
There has never been an issue with the current method. As you previously stated that manual counting is needed currently. Though since those adding articles (only a handful of editors) to the list usually only add one or two articles at a time the process of removing the last one or two articles on the list is not a difficult one.

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)[reply]

Rhodes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

David Owen Dodd and DOD

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)[reply]

Windy Point (disambiguation)

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)[reply]

Sleepwalking I've heard of, even talking in your sleep....but sleeptyping is a new one on me! Only one blue link per item... ok, technically there's only one blue link at the moment - but were you planning on removing the second link if the article was created...hmmmm ? C'mon - be honest, or I'll set my swarm of highly trained attack moths on your duvet :-) (though I guess living down under means moths are the least of your troubles what with crocodiles, spiders, snakes etc.... - a chance to be poisoned by something different every day ;-)) CultureDrone (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - that's probably the stereotypical attitude towards Australia you expect from a 'pom' - I wasn't trying to be offensive - that's something I can normally do without trying... ;-)CultureDrone (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..I see you've had a veritable explosion of Windy Points :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double entendre ? Well...it seemed amusing to me - but that could be down to my weird sense of humour.... :-) I blame my parents...then again, who doesn't ?... Freud, eat your heart out !

"Once I've created the Adelaide page, what should I do about all the other redlinks?" hmmm...how about creating articles for them ? ;-p A radical thought I know, but hey, I believe in surprising people at least once a day (no, not like that !) :-) Actually, it's not as bad a thought as you may think - WP is fairly relaxed on geographical articles - creating a stub article with an infobox and coordinates would probably be enough for the moment - if the information is to hand, it could be a copy and paste job for most of them. I'll split it 50:50 with you if you're feeling under pressure from the 'old country' :-) If you have any pictures of the place in Adelaide that don't include your girlfriend(s), then you could upload one so we could all marvel at the view....but hey, no rush... see - laid back attitude as well !

I'm devestated by your lack of assumption of good faith! (I may never recover!!) Of course that was my plan! (Was that sufficiently convincing?). You're so honest and trustworthy, how could I be less than totally convinced ?

"Killer moths" are a new one on me - honestly, killer moths ?! Do they eat through your underwear, causing terminal embarrassment ?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Drop bears

Aha..I'm not falling for that one ! Besides, I read Terry Pratchett ;-p :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Killer Moths are plausible in the land of perpetual sunshine :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you've read Pratchett..besides, Killer Moths don't have a Wikipedia entry....CultureDrone (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military ranks template

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)[reply]

Re: John Norris

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

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)[reply]

Jim Burgess

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)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:BadcoeMedalsSmall.jpg

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)[reply]

Sorry

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)[reply]

You hadn't unlinked all the dates, at the time, I was about to go out to work, the easisest way to get the article consistent again was to go back to the previous version, which also (as I saw it at the time) had the advantage of getting rid of duplication in the lead, and having the opportunity to puts things back together in a way that seemed to flow better - had I merely done it in one operation you'd never have known, but I pressed save instead of preview as I was trying to sort things out. As I say I was in a hurry, and failed to deal with the situation as well as I might. (I note we still have linked dates in several references, so the article is still a bit of a mish-mash, personally I'm not entirely convinced by the unlinking arguments, and it probably would have been better to have left them linked until a consensus had been established) On the "to date" etc issue see WP:DATE, using "as of" is encouraged, it makes it clear when the data was last checked (though perhps in this particular case there are enough people watching the article that any award is likely to be picked up pretty quickly) looking further I see there's now a template {{tl:as of}} which automatically categorises articles containing the statements to make sure they're updated in a timely fashion. David Underdown (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of dubious value

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.--

RE:VCA

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)[reply]

Replied on my talkpage. Woody (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scherger

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)[reply]

Results of Confusion

I still don't know how a simple redirect confusion ended up the longest thread on my usertalkpage...

But through it all, the end result, though totally unrelated, was pretty neat.

And at the very least, it was fun...

Thanks for your tolerance!

		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)}

Heart

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)[reply]

You're right, I didn't even realize the dual meaning of my edit summary! I got a good laugh when you pointed it out. I typically only change to American spelling when the article deals solely with an American (United States) topic. I do a bit of cringing myself. Asher196 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who turned off the universal translator?

To clarify:

"earned" I consider the lead a "name at birth", not a "name at death" or "name during career".
"President JFK" He wasn't born Pres, per above.
"retains" The argument was, a person who retired from active duty could continue to use the rank (for instance, Col Sanders).
"of no moment" Irrelevant, as per 2. above.
"relevant" It's not. The rank will be mentioned in the bio. It doesn't need to be, & shouldn't be, in the lead.
"make a fool of myself in public" Don't worry about it. And if you're asking, there's a chance somebody else is wondering, too...

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your Pvt Benjamin add: it's conventional (if you don't already know...) to add at the bottom, not interpolate. (Unless you're replying to a specific point, when it's is a bit open to debate.) It's considered impolite in some circles, borderline vandalism in others, & generally bad form. (I moved it to the bottom, which is just within the acceptable limits for "tampering" with somebody else's comments...)

On an unrelated issue, which edit summary of "Heart" is at issue (described above)? Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:38, 15:40, & 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's OT for the page, let me answer here. I wouldn't offer "Pvt Benjamin" as a defense. I could argue for "Sgt York", which gets the rank wrong for the incident in question. Or "Rob Roy". Film titles don't bear on the issue; they're serving a very different purpose. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About interpolation? It's not a huge issue for me, but some people are liable to rag you for it. Might as well avoid it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commodore Richard Shalders

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.[reply]

The issue should be; it was the one before the present issue. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Star ribbon

What do you think of this one Image:Atlantic Star ribbon.png - compared to this? PalawanOz (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoD

Replied on my talk page. XLerate (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lester

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)[reply]

Ribbons

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)[reply]

Look, I'm not even bothered to enter a debate on this issue. I believe I have explained myself in the edit summaries, a little vague I admit, but I have nonetheless. As to my statement on what you say in the edit summaries to be demeaning it is just how I feel; to me they feel like they border on personal attacks, I'm sorry if that is not what you meant, but that is how I feel. As I have stated, I am not fussed on the ribbon sections any longer, but I would prefer if we could consult each other before making edits. If you would like to ask me why or how I think/believe/know medal sets to be incomplete then you can just ask. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Blamey

From User talk:David Underdown

Hi David, I was trying to work out how to become familiar with, and work out how to make use of the London Gazette, so I was looking at Thomas Blamey#References.

Comment: References 1, 12 & 13 repeatedly come up with "An unexpected error occurred while processing your request."

Question: Reference 4 (DSO) - I can't find mention of either Blamey OR Blarney. What am I doing wrongly?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough explanation. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a Fool Believes

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)[reply]

Your place or mine?

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)[reply]

Thanks for drawing attention to that edit summary -- I have now fixed all those abbreviations to redirect to the same page, and I can't find any others! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you google Coimbatore CBE, you will be able to validate that one. As for Cheers Big Ears, a similar search just turns up a couple of people who have tried to coin it as an internet abbreviation, so I think you are right to remove that one. Keep up the good work, Fayenatic (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fosters Article

Ok fixed it up ill make sure ill be more specfific next time. Pattav2 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En: Norris

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)

I answered the question on en:Talk:Norris#T._Norris_&_Son Ohedland 21. aug 2008 kl. 14:57 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohedland (talk • contribs) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows / Odd Fellows / IOOF

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)[reply]

Category 'Odd Fellows' is a sub-category of Category 'Fraternal and service organizations', so an article doesn't need to be in both the category and sub-category. [See comment 'Category Question' above]--Editor2020 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense. Thanks. While we're on the topic, what's the easiest way to determine if something is sub-category of something else? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you again. Most appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pdfpdf, you have my sympathies, bullying is an issue on WP. Linkboyz (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your rambling diatribe from my talk page, WP is not the place to "vent your spleen" in such a manner. My comments about edit summaries and invitation to ask others about this on WP:AN stand. Happy editing. Deiz talk 02:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That which was removed by User:Deiz from User talk:Deiz

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

background persecution

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.

OK. That sounds like a good start. I have no problems with that. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an administrator

So what? Am I supposed to be impressed? Am I supposed to cower in fear? What's your point in saying this? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and a member of the external links project,

ditto Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please ask if you have any further questions.

Well, that's reasonable. But rather vague. Questions about what? (Sorry, rhetorical question bred from the fact that your tone is condescending.) Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~Well well! Aren't you the man-of-the-world!~~

Again, condescending. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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,

Ummmmmm. A rationale, yes. But "a detailed rationale"? I think that's stretching it somewhat.

Also, however you intended it, (even in the best of goodwill, let alone good faith), I found it offensive. You know, it doesn't really matter how you intended it; what matters is how it was received. I (and others) put effort into that contribution. I find that you (and/or others) classifying it as "weasel words" is offensive.

Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and {{tone}}

Fair enough. I can accept that. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and {{wikify}}

I don't really understand what is intended here, so I have no comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ever heard of "Assume Good Faith"?

None, (I repeat and emphasise: NONE), of the comments I made were intened to have ANY of those characteristics. I find it (mixed emotions) that you chose/choose to interpret them that way.

Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means remove the tag and explain why if you feel there is good reason to do so

I thought I had. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{even better, follow your own sermon and do some editing},

Hypocracy reigns supreme!! I've done the editing! You are just sitting back and complaining. Tell me: other than threatening and bullying me, what have you done? Nothing productive!!! Pull your head in! Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Oh come on! Who died and appointed you as God? Read your own propaganda! (e.g. 'I am in no way "better" than any other editor') How do you think bullying me and/or threatening me is going to improve the situation? Particularly when it is so obviously undeserved? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What am I supposed to get from that? This "discussion" has NOTHING to do with anyone other than you and me. You are simply introducing irrelevant red herrings. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, your edit summary was not polite

I'm dumbfounded by your statement. I meant what I said. If you need me to (and it seems that you do), I'll say it again:

"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."

Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and the editor you disagree with had a genuine concern and the best intentions when adding the tag to the page.

Red herring. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say "OK, I agree I was a bit hasty, a bit sharp tongued and the article does need some work"?

Well! Because that's YOUR point-of-view, not mine!! Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

From where I am, I would say that is because you are either ignoring or avoiding the points I am raising. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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,

Red herring. They are not the points I'm referring to.

I can assure you that others will have NO problem in recognising your attempted abuse of power. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and try to take it in good faith

OK, I'll follow your example. Oh, what example? I don't see you displaying any good faith. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Goodness gracious me! Had you not noticed that I was the FIRST person to point out these problems? Pdfpdf (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]