User talk:Sinesurfer

File:2008-100px-Flag of the Governor-General of New Zealand.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2008-100px-Flag of the Governor-General of New Zealand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate content

Hi There. I had done a bit of work on New Zealand Flag Debate when I noticed that you also created a page called Flag of New Zealand Debate with identical content. Pages with duplicate content get really tricky around here, because editors start working on pages independently of each other, eventually making two pages on the same subject that are quite different. In fact, that's exactly what was starting to happen. I have consolidated the work at New Zealand Flag Debate, and created a redirect to that page from Flag of New Zealand Debate. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, edit histories must remain intact due to copyright/attribution Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Use the "move" button instead of copying stuff. do you have it? ~~Or are you not "autoconfirmed" yet? (takes 4 days)~~ nevermind -- you are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Commonwealth visits made by Queen Elizabeth II‎

Not a big problem - was just doing some quick cleanup rounds before the imminent day-long Wiki-blackout. Dl2000 (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008-460px-Flag of the Governor-General of New Zealand.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2008-460px-Flag of the Governor-General of New Zealand.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Cloudbound (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hutt by-election, 1858

Thanks for picking up the wrong person. Just a quick note that when you edit an MP's name and you get a redlink, something is wrong, as since last year, the list of NZ MPs on Wikipedia is complete. I've fixed it up; the successful candidate's name was Alfred Renall. Schwede 66 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article maintenance tags on redirects

Please do not place article maintenance tags on redirects. Redirects are not articles, even though they exist in the article namespace. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nominals

I'm testing Template:Post-nominals however it defaults to the Canadian template even when

the template is called/referenced using '''John Smith''' {{Post-nominals|country=NZL|QFSM|QPM|QFSMds|QPMds}}
there is a document named Template:Post-nominals/NZL
the data file includes the lines

The expected outcome is John Smith QFSM QPM QFSM QPM

The observed outcome is John Smith QFSM QPM

QPMds and QFSMds are unique to the NZL template are missing, my conclusion is that the Canadian template is referenced even though country=NZL is the second parameter. Could you tell me what I'm missing when trying to reference a different template?

If you look on the Order of New Zealand page, you'll see for example, there are females with the post-nominals 'GNZM' but template when you put your cursor over the letter's it reads 'Knight Grand Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit' in stead of 'Dame Grand Companion...' The template is good, but there are holes in it such as not distinguishing male and female recipients.

Actually now I'm looking at the coding I can see it does distinguish within the code.

MBE etc

I changed your edit to Nicola Benedetti. Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire is a redirect to Order of the British Empire so it is better to link to the target page with a pipe than to link to the redirect page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nom template / AUS

a) Why did you change it? Please look at the documentation - the situation is already under control. Your change has MANY consequences, only ONE of which you are addressing. This is a significant change - please discuss such changes on the template talk page BEFORE making such changes, and get consensus BEFORE making such changes.

b) Your change is inadequate - look at ALL of the template code.

~~c) You have also deleted options. Why? Again, discuss it on the template talk page BEFORE making such changes.~~

c) You have also added options not relevant to Australians. Why?

d) If and when you make any changes to a template, update the documentation.

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am undoing all of the changes, give me 10-20 mins to reverse everthing. Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 13:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. (FYI, I think I've already undone them.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now. Rick Burr, Mark Evans, Mike Hindmarsh, Tim McOwan & Gordon Olive had dropped out of Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia) and changes have been undone. Have a look at the AUS-cats Talk Page

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

BTW, and more importantly: As I said below, AUS-cats doesn't work properly; e.g. it is NOT generating a cat for any order-of-Australia entries. (i.e. Don't use AUS-cats until you are sure that it is working.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (P.S. It's bedtime here. Talk to you tomorrow.)[reply]

AUS-cats

This does not appear to be working. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In AUS-cats index AC has never had a category. I've attached category Category:Companions of the Order of Australia on Tuesday 0543 hrs UTC/Wednesday 1343 AEST.

Is there anything else that needs attention? Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 05:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Quite a bit. I created a documentation page, but haven't done very much at all to the template itself (yet) - One might say it's a "work-in-(slow)-progress" ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. FYI, I also did some fiddling with Template:Post-nominals/AUS/doc. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats/doc

(Imported AUS-cats into documentation, discussion regarding Order of St John is on talk page.) - There is nothing at all on Template talk:Post-nominals/AUS-cats/doc, and nothing relevant about the Order of St John on Template talk:Post-nominals/AUS-cats.
Which talk page are you referring to? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't replied to this question. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, at a minimum, it would have been polite to ask me why I did something BEFORE you undid it.

Independent of manners, it is Wikipedia policy to get consensus before making such changes.

And as I've said to you AT LEAST once before, if & when you have consensus to change a template, (which you didn't have), then PLEASE UPDATE THE DOCUMENTATION to reflect your changes. (Yes, I'm getting a bit grumpy about some of your edits.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

0907 hrs Sunday 1 September 2013

Pdfpdf, You have four separate points.

Y'know, at a minimum, it would have been polite to ask me why I did something BEFORE you undid it.

I should ask you before I undo something. What did I undo? Which data sheet are you referring to? AUS or AUS-cats? or something else? What is the date/time stamp on the edit? I can't read your mind and your comment doesn't provide a hint as it isn't even on a Talk page.
*if* you mean AUS-cats and the 22:15, 31 August 2013‎ edit then data files are sorted alphabetically so we can find the indices and links. Managing the Australian specific data file becomes complicated when it's set-up differently to GBR, GBR-cats, CAN, CAN-cats, NZL and NZL-cats. The data is certainly unique however it uses a single shared template and data schema that connects to thousands of subject pages. If every country uses a unique data schema then only a sub-set of their own nations will be able to manage the specific national data sheet (which is a bad idea).

Independent of manners, it is Wikipedia policy to get consensus before making such changes.

Consensus is important and is required when making a change. I added post-nominal letters and categories and sorted out the mess where someone had confused FRSNZ and FRS. This is not a change, it's fixing a problem. As for alphabetical sorting, as explained above non-alphabetic sorting complicates parsing the file and moving between the GBR/CAN/NZL data files. If you want to discuss consensus then between my edit to create AUS-cat and revision 01:21, 29 August 2013 I don't see any discussion on the Talk Page about resorting the index.

And as I've said to you AT LEAST once before, if & when you have consensus to change a template, (which you didn't have), then PLEASE UPDATE THE DOCUMENTATION to reflect your changes.

AUS and AUS-cats aren't templates. They are data sheets that attach to the transclusion template Template:Post-nominals that is in turn called by 3,972 subject pages as at 2006 hrs Saturday 31 August 2013 UTC. If you mean revision 22:58, 20 August 2013‎ on AUS-cats then I reversed the changes. Exactly what more do you want out of me when I reverse the change I made?? On the point of documentation, I DID document the change in Revision 21:20, 28 August 2013‎ and user Pdfpdf reversed the change.

I think it is hypocritical to accuse me of NOT updating documentation when *YOU* reverse out the changes.

You would benefit from

reviewing how the national and imperial honours are managed in the NZL and CAN data sheets.
review the special cases created by the Duke of Edinburgh on GBR-cats against the page List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. He holds several substantive honours in foreign Orders which would be honorary for anyone else.
Learning the difference between data sheet and template. Do you understand what I mean by index versus post-nominal letters or link and category?
remembering that although imperial honours that have not been awarded to Australians for decades data sheets AUS & AUS-cats cover *ALL* of Australian history and not just the last 40 years since 1975.

You really need to consider why the template works with data sheets for three other countries however there is only one difference between those data sheets and the Australian data sheet.

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

0907 hrs Sunday 1 September 2013 - In which timezone? (FYI: 5 tildes gives a UTC time&date stamp.)

Pdfpdf, You have four separate points. - I can only see three. Which is the fourth?

1) Y'know, at a minimum, it would have been polite to ask me why I did something BEFORE you undid it.

I should ask you before I undo something. - Before you undo something that I did and provided an edit summary and updated the accompanying documentation explaining the changes. Yes, both manners AND WP guidelines say you should.
What did I undo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APost-nominals%2FAUS-cats&action=history

00:24, 1 September 2013‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,732 bytes) (-1,059)‎ . . ("Sorted list into Alphabetical order" - Why? (I went to considerable effort to separate out the imperial honours that have not been awarded to Australians for decades.))
20:07, 31 August 2013‎ Sinesurfer (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,791 bytes) (-18)‎ . . (Detached Category:Australian Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand from FRSNZ, This should have been Category:Foreign Members of the Royal Society and attached to FRS) (undo | thank)
19:45, 31 August 2013‎ Sinesurfer (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,809 bytes) (+1,077)‎ . . (Sorted list into Alphabetical order, Added FRS & FRCP, added Category:Australian knights & Category:Australian dames. Attached new Category:Australian Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand to FRSNZ, was displaying as FRS in error.) (undo | thank)
22:51, 28 August 2013‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,732 bytes) (-3,238)‎ . . (Update template to match doc)
21:53, 21 August 2013‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,970 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (+ link to doc)
20:59, 21 August 2013‎ Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,926 bytes) (+185)‎ . . (Under Construction, and in need of thorough testing)

Which data sheet are you referring to? ... - see above

data files are sorted alphabetically so we can find the indices and links.

As a generalisation, that statement is not entirely accurate. As a generalisation, data associated with templates is in whatever order best suits the users of the templates. (I discuss this in more detail below.)

By-the-way: Who is/are "we"?

Managing the Australian specific data file becomes complicated when it's set-up differently to GBR, GBR-cats, CAN, CAN-cats, NZL and NZL-cats.

a) In general, it is set up in the same way. (If it weren't, the template would not work.)

b) Where it is "different", this is because aspects of the Australian Honours System are different to the general case.

c) Another difference is that Australian users of the Australian template have requested an option to separate the post-nominal-s with commas; I have already implemented this in Template:Post-nominals/AUS.

d) Post-nominal-s of the order of St John are NOT recognised in the Australian Honours System.

e) The Australian Honours System was changed dramatically in 1992; Imperial honours have NOT been awarded to Australians for over 20 years; Imperial honours are no longer part of the current Australian Honours System; Use of Post-nominal-s by Australians for Imperial honours only applies to awards made before 1992, and hence form a separate special group which is NOT part of the current Australian Honours System.

The data is certainly unique however it uses a single shared template and data schema that connects to thousands of subject pages. If every country uses a unique data schema then only a sub-set of their own nations will be able to manage the specific national data sheet (which is a bad idea).

This statement misses some of the important consequences of the Australian exceptions. The AUS data in the AUS-cats file is currently presented in two sub-list, and when complete, will be in four sub-lists, but the data schema is the same - it is not unique - only the data is unique. I examined the templates and data files BEFORE I modified Template:Post-nominals/AUS in order to ensure that I would be using the same data schema.

2) Independent of manners, it is Wikipedia policy to get consensus before making such changes.

Consensus is important and is required when making a change. I added post-nominal letters and categories and sorted out the mess where someone had confused FRSNZ and FRS. This is not a change, it's fixing a problem.

Yes, that bit is. And it is but a small part of what you did, and it is not that change that I am complaining about.

As for alphabetical sorting, as explained above non-alphabetic sorting complicates parsing the file and moving between the GBR/CAN/NZL data files.

a) It is not in non-alphabetic order - it is in 2, and will be in 4 sub-lists, each in alphabetic sort.

b) My analysis of the template determined that the order of data makes no difference at all to the parsing. Therefore, please explain to me how this will complicate anything.

c) Please also note that, as I explained above, the bit of the AUS list that is separated from the main body is NOT part of the current AUS system, and if you examine that sub-set of the data, you will find that it also has many differences to the GBR/CAN/NZL data.

If you want to discuss consensus then between my edit to create AUS-cat and revision 01:21, 29 August 2013 I don't see any discussion on the Talk Page about resorting the index.

No, I don't want to do that, because I don't think it is relevant.

As you yourself said, the Australian system has differences. I have managed to incorporate these changes by modifying the data so that the unchanged template and unchanged data schema continue to do their original job, and also handle the Australian exceptions. Where the system it is the same as the general system, things are the same. Where it is different, I have already added features and functions to Template:Post-nominals/AUS to cater for those differences, and I have commenced adding features and functions to Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats. Without consulting me, you chose to revert some of those changes.

3) And as I've said to you AT LEAST once before, if & when you have consensus to change ~~a template~~ that which you refer to as a data sheet, (which you didn't have), then PLEASE UPDATE THE DOCUMENTATION to reflect your changes.

Template:Post-nominals/AUS and Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats aren't templates.

If you say so. I think you're playing with semantics. As they start with "[[Template:", I called them templates. However, from your response it is quite clear you understood what I was saying, even if I didn't use your preferred terminology.

They are data sheets that attach to the transclusion template Template:Post-nominals that is in turn called by 3,972 subject pages as at 2006 hrs Saturday 31 August 2013 UTC.

Ditto.

If you mean revision 22:58, 20 August 2013‎ on AUS-cats then I reversed the changes. Exactly what more do you want out of me when I reverse the change I made?? On the point of documentation, I DID document the change in Revision 21:20, 28 August 2013‎ and user Pdfpdf reversed the change.

What you did NOT do is update Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats/doc.

I think it is hypocritical to accuse me of NOT updating documentation when *YOU* reverse out the changes.

Ignored.

You would benefit from & You really need to

I find this section supercilious and arrogant. I don't see how you could possibly have any idea what I would benefit from and/or what I really need to do. As it happens, you are quite incorrect - I would not get any benefit from these things because I have previously already done them. Might I suggest that you might benefit from not telling other people what you think they would (or even might) benefit from?

I gather it had not occurred to you that I might already have done these things? Yes, I had looked at GBR-cats and had concluded that it provided nothing additional that was relevant to solving the problems I was addressing. As I have been lecturing Computer Science and Information Systems for decades, I more than just a little bit aware of these issues.

And as to your last two "perceived benefits", I have dealt with them above.

Pdfpdf (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinesurfer says: I though we agreed on 26 August 2013 in [this discussion] to remove post-nominal letters (and the linking page) and when necessary just use {{post-nominals|post-noms=KStJ}}?

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes a very long response: I've edited the dialogue into their specific points however the content of your remarks are unchanged

08:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
0907 hrs Sunday 1 September 2013 - In which timezone? (FYI: 5 tildes gives a UTC time&date stamp.)
Sinesurfer says:Good point, you're right. I should be using UTC.

Pdfpdf, You have four separate points. - I can only see three. Which is the fourth?
Sinesurfer says:I forget the fourth point I wanted to make, it likely wasn't important.
I should ask you before I undo something.
Before you undo something that I did and provided an edit summary and updated the accompanying documentation explaining the changes. Yes, both manners AND WP guidelines say you should.

What did I undo?
Sinesurfer says: I was referring to revision 570926972] which was followed by [570928859] when the earlier edit was undone leaving work completed in the later edit having to be repeated so two points,

If I have to speak with you when I change something, why doesn't that apply both ways? Reverting an earlier edit also reintroduces errors removed by the later edit?

[...snip...]

Which data sheet are you referring to? ... - see above
I was asking you to identify which edit you were refering to when you said Y'know, at a minimum, it would have been polite to ask me why I did something BEFORE you undid it and I was asking if you meant revision 570926972 (22:15, 31 August 2013‎). This discussion would be easier (for me) if you can specify which of multiple edits you're referencing, I don't make guesses or assumptions in a discussion.

As I stated earlier,
data files are sorted alphabetically so we can find the indices and links.
As a generalisation, that statement is not entirely accurate. As a generalisation, data associated with templates is in whatever order best suits the users of the templates. (I discuss this in more detail below.)

By-the-way: Who is/are "we"?
Sinesurfer says: Well, I agree it's not entirely alphabetic as (you lecture in CompSci) aster has a lower ANSI value than capital A so * should be at the start of the listing, was that your point? It's certainly easier to disambiguate Australian and Imperial awards with a similar name when the entries are adjacent (as is the case with VC/VCi, DSC/DSCuk and DSM/DSMuk). I've checked GBR, GBR-cats, CAN, CAN-cats, NZL and NZL-cats are (aside from the mis-sorted aster) overwhelmingly alphabetic using the index as the primary key.
Managing the Australian specific data file becomes complicated when it's set-up differently to GBR, GBR-cats, CAN, CAN-cats, NZL and NZL-cats.
a) In general, it is set up in the same way. (If it weren't, the template would not work.)
Agreed the data schema is the same but would you consider sorting on two keys versus a single key a material difference from CAN and NZL which both manage Imperial and National honours?

b) Where it is "different", this is because aspects of the Australian Honours System are different to the general case.
Disagree because Canada and New Zealand manage two honour systems in a single data sheet without your added customisations.

c) Another difference is that Australian users of the Australian template have requested an option to separate the post-nominal-s with commas; I have already implemented this in Template:Post-nominals/AUS.
As long as changes continue to comply with Wikipedia:POSTNOM and Wikipedia:CREDENTIAL certainly go ahead. I suggest you consider merging the comma delimited and non-comma entries (into alphabetic order) so it is clear how to render the final post-nominal without a comma and secondly migrate the additions from AUS into AUS-cats so article pages can change between templates without further editing.

d) Post-nominal-s of the order of St John are NOT recognised in the Australian Honours System.
For historical pages where awards were made under the imperial system (and pre-date 14 August 1982) are Australians still entitled to post-nominal letters? Were the post-nominals removed effective from 1982 or removed retroactively? (My copy of the Royal Charters and Statutes of The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem is from 2004 however I can't find the actual media release (from 1982) or anything in the Commonwealth Gazette for the following fortnight. There are many references to the media release, just can't find the media release itself.

e) The Australian Honours System was changed dramatically in 1992; Imperial honours have NOT been awarded to Australians for over 20 years; Imperial honours are no longer part of the current Australian Honours System; Use of Post-nominal-s by Australians for Imperial honours only applies to awards made before 1992, and hence form a separate special group which is NOT part of the current Australian Honours System.
This isn't the Australian Honours System, this is wikipedia where the perspective includes what came *before* the recent changes in 1992 because honour systems change.
The data is certainly unique however it uses a single shared template and data schema that connects to thousands of subject pages. If every country uses a unique data schema then only a sub-set of their own nations will be able to manage the specific national data sheet (which is a bad idea).
This statement misses some of the important consequences of the Australian exceptions. The AUS data in the AUS-cats file is currently presented in two sub-list, and when complete, will be in four sub-lists, but the data schema is the same - it is not unique - only the data is unique. I examined the templates and data files BEFORE I modified Template:Post-nominals/AUS in order to ensure that I would be using the same data schema.
Okay, so where are you going with these changes? My concern is that too much customisation will require editors to be conversant with the AHS to maintain the data sheet. With Canada and New Zealand only minimal knowledge of the underlying honour systems is required. Are you doing more work than is necessary?
Discarded this point because you said it is not that change that I am complaining about.
As for alphabetical sorting, as explained above non-alphabetic sorting complicates parsing the file and moving between the GBR/CAN/NZL data files.

a) It is not in non-alphabetic order - it is in 2, and will be in 4 sub-lists, each in alphabetic sort.
Okay, agreed it's not non-alphabetic but it is sorted on two keys being [1] name/type of honour system and [2] alphabetic based on index. Can we agree on that much?

b) My analysis of the template determined that the order of data makes no difference at all to the parsing. Therefore, please explain to me how this will complicate anything.
You're right that order doesn't complicate the data sheet for the template which simply searches for a match, passes this back via #1 and returns a blank if no match is found. For Humans on the other hand, would you agree that having the comma delimited and non-comma post-nominals adjacent would make finding the comma version easier (which would require strict alphabetic order) instead of using sub-sets?

c) Please also note that, as I explained above, the bit of the AUS list that is separated from the main body is NOT part of the current AUS system, and if you examine that sub-set of the data, you will find that it also has many differences to the GBR/CAN/NZL data.
Maybe add some names into the data sheet or document this change also I don't understand the need to list foreign honours. The template can be used multiple times with different data sheets or the post-noms variable accepts any wiki code. An example is if John Smith as 2 Australian and 2 foreign honours you could use:

John Smith {{post-nominals|country=AUS|AC|DSCa}} {{post-nominals|country=NZL|QSOh}} {{post-nominals|post-noms=SSI}} renders as

John Smith or

John Smith {{post-nominals|country=AUS|AC|DSCa}} {{post-nominals|post-noms=[[Honorary Companion of the Queen's Service Order|QSO]] [[Star of the Solomon Islands|SSI]]}} renders as

John Smith
If you want to discuss consensus then between my edit to create AUS-cat and revision 01:21, 29 August 2013 I don't see any discussion on the Talk Page about resorting the index.
No, I don't want to do that, because I don't think it is relevant.
I can't find another way to interpret avoidance as you can make changes to the data sheet but when I do it I'm wrong and your changes don't require discussion or consensus.

As you yourself said, the Australian system has differences. I have managed to incorporate these changes by modifying the data so that the unchanged template and unchanged data schema continue to do their original job, and also handle the Australian exceptions. Where the system it is the same as the general system, things are the same. Where it is different, I have already added features and functions to Template:Post-nominals/AUS to cater for those differences, and I have commenced adding features and functions to Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats. Without consulting me, you chose to revert some of those changes.
The point that bugs me is that too much customisation will require a different skill-set when a combined and alphabet sorted list works for Canada and New Zealand who used an imperial system in the past and both have their own national honour systems so what benefit do these changes provide (other than comma separation which was requested)? Secondly, I don't see the value in seperating the sheet into four sub-groups when 2 other realms (with their own national honour system) can manage with a single list.

3) And as I've said to you AT LEAST once before, if & when you have consensus to change ~~a template~~ that which you refer to as a data sheet, (which you didn't have), then PLEASE UPDATE THE DOCUMENTATION to reflect your changes.
Template:Post-nominals/AUS and Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats aren't templates.
If you say so. I think you're playing with semantics. As they start with "[[Template:", I called them templates. However, from your response it is quite clear you understood what I was saying, even if I didn't use your preferred terminology.
In the syntax Template:Post-nominals/AUS, think of it as Template=Post-nominals and test file in a sub-directory named AUS. In the syntax Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats, think of it as Template=Post-nominals and text file in a sub-directory named AUS-cats. The forward slash notation is a sub-directory on a file server so AUS and AUS-cats are sub-documents of template Post-nominals. An easy to remember the difference is the template is seldom edited, the data sheet is frequently changed. Another example is the template {{infobox}} is seldom edited however the data entered into the template from an article page is frequently edited.
- They are data sheets that attach to the transclusion template Template:Post-nominals that is in turn called by 3,972 subject pages as at 2006 hrs Saturday 31 August 2013 UTC.
Ditto.
Right, don't have an answer. No problem, when you say template I understand you mean the data sheet but it's not the template that you edit.
- If you mean revision 22:58, 20 August 2013‎ on AUS-cats then I reversed the changes. Exactly what more do you want out of me when I reverse the change I made?? On the point of documentation, I DID document the change in Revision 21:20, 28 August 2013‎ and user Pdfpdf reversed the change.
  What you did NOT do is update Template:Post-nominals/AUS-cats/doc.
The update you say I didn't do I believe is revision [570515582].
I think it is hypocritical to accuse me of NOT updating documentation when *YOU* reverse out the changes.
Ignored.
I'm having difficulty believing that you're acting in good faith when you complain I didn't update documentation that you reverted. I think the key difference between us is that I use documentation as an instructional tool and you use it as a requirements list. Which do you think editors need when they open the AUS-cats document? Guidance on using the template and data sheet or a description on how things will be at some unknown point in the future?
You would benefit from & You really need to
I find this section supercilious and arrogant. I don't see how you could possibly have any idea what I would benefit from and/or what I really need to do. As it happens, you are quite incorrect - I would not get any benefit from these things because I have previously already done them. Might I suggest that you might benefit from not telling other people what you think they would (or even might) benefit from?
Okay my fault. That wasn't the emotion I was aiming for, in hindsight I could have gone with "Two countries already manage the imperial and national honour systems in a single data sheet" with maybe "benefit from review to reduce your workload". If you can't handle a suggestion that could benefit you and possibly reduce your workload then.... you need help from someone smarter than me.

I gather it had not occurred to you that I might already have done these things? Yes, I had looked at GBR-cats and had concluded that it provided nothing additional that was relevant to solving the problems I was addressing. As I have been lecturing Computer Science and Information Systems for decades, I more than just a little bit aware of these issues.
First, what you 'gather' is your assumption. Second I acknowledge extensive research on your part is entirely possible however from your single sentence answers or remarks of "Ignored" the likelihood of reaching that conclusion is minimal (and I haven't even gone into the part about avoiding decisions based on assumption).
And as to your last two "perceived benefits", I have dealt with them above.
I want to caution you. It's brave to customise the Australian data sheet to fit your usage case but the risk of too much change can lead to complexity (compared to GBR, CAN and NZL) then you risk being the only editor using the AUS/AUS-cats data sheet.
New Point:Categories for Australian knights and Australian dames.
When you removed these two categories from Knight of the Order of Australia and Dame of the Order of Australia because they were a super-category (and did you mean to say Container Category)?

While I don't understand your reason for removing the dual categories of Category:Knights of the Order of Australia and Category:Australian knights from Knight of the Order of Australia (the same link for Dames). You called one of the three categories a super-category (and did you mean to say Container Category)? however there are around 600 subject pages that are manually tagged in the same manner. Either the dual categories need to be restored in AUS-cats or there are 668 pages to manually update. Which is the next action?

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 08:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Yes, it is a long response. Thanks. (And I much prefer its tone to the tone of some of your previous responses.) I apologise that at the moment I don't have time to provide a reply worthy of your response - hopefully I shall be able to do this before the end of the weekend. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start?

Thanks for all of the above, and for the issues you've resolved. Never-the-less, there's still an awful lot left, and I suspect a lot of it is no longer relevant, and/or no longer interesting to either and/or both of us, and/or has been overtaken by events.

Could I bother you to extract those things that are important to both you and the article that you would like me to address, summarise them, and provide a list of questions that you are keen for me to answer?

To reduce the size of that task, I'll have a quick go at what's there. I will skip over (without mention) the issues that I feel are resolved - please indicate if there are matters that I've missed or that you wish to discuss further.

>I've edited the dialogue into their specific points however the content of your remarks are unchanged

Seems fair.

1. Addressed?

2. Sounds like it was a communication problem. Resolved?

3. a) By-the-way: Who is/are "we"? - *** unaddressed ***

3. b) I don't understand your reply, but does that matter? (i.e. The topic sounds resolved to me. Agreed?)

4. a) Resolved?

4. b) It looks like more discussion needed here - i.e. we seem to disagree.

4. c) Resolved?

4: d) To be honest this is not a topic about which I have any enthusiasm, any great interest, or any great knowledge. If you ask specific questions, I can probably give specific answers. My personal experience editing WP for Australians has only ever come across KStJ, and mostly, these do not seem to be used. The following is a random (and probably biased) sample - not meant to be exhaustive or definitive, just simply indicative.:

Not included: Michael Jeffery; Eric Woodward; James Ramsay (Australian governor); John Sanderson; Marie Bashir; Peter Arnison; Thomas Blamey (actually, CStJ)
Included (But these people are Brits, not Aussies): Dallas Brooks
BTW/FYI: Jerry Mateparae doesn't use KStJ, either.
Sorry - this isn't particularly conclusive.

More later. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ranger

Hi Sinesurfer,

you removed Rami Ranger update as IOd Director of the Year - Large company citing Claire Black as the ultimate winner. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Could you have a look at the nominees on that page and Claire black is not listed at all. Have a look at this link.

I have seen the award with his name on it too.

I cant find anything on the wqeb yet but will add a link once the IOD have done a press release.

Thanks

Harmeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 IOD recipient - Lawrence Tomlinson

I confused Claire Black (recipient of the Family business Director of the Year) which is listed above Director of the Year (Large Company) which is listed as Lawrence Tomlinson, Chairman, LNT Group and refer here.

I found Ranger is a nominee for the 2013 award listed here and not as the winner unless there is a more recent citation.

Thanks for your suggestion about using templates. I will find out how to do that. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmeetahuja (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Stephens (talk|contribs) 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada

Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British post-nomials for an Indian citizen

I'm assuming that your repeatedly putting Honorary British postnomials on the page of an Indian citizen, Ratan Tata, is done in good faith. Please gain consensus for that edit on WT:INDIA. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WT:INDIA relates to an entire country, have responded on Talk:Ratan Tata as discussion is limited in scope to a single person (and possibly only a few individuals at most).

Cheers --Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 14:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Tata is an Indian before he is anything else. WT:INDIA has experts on India and the rules and regulations of the Government of India. I've replied on Talk:Ratan Tata. I suggest there that you self-revert. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:NZ Parliament

Template:NZ Parliament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Extra Lady of The Most Noble Order of the Garter

Hello Sinesurfer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Extra Lady of The Most Noble Order of the Garter for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antiqueight

Further research shows that there are no recipients of this award so I concur that the category should be removed.

--Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 06:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Post-nominals/NZL-cats

I've put the template up for deletion using Twinkle, but noticed that you didn't get an automatic notification. Schwede 66 09:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on Wikipedia, go ahead and kill the template then manage the 97 Knights and 39 Dames of the New Zealand Order of Merit separately instead of with NZ-cats. Just ignore that NZ-cats is the easiest management method.

--Karl Stephens ( talk | contribs ) 09:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sinesurfer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Dame of the Order of Australia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Additional Dame of the Order of Australia. Since you had some involvement with the Additional Dame of the Order of Australia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sinesurfer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Post-nominals/USA

Template:Post-nominals/USA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DrKay (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]