User talk:Pdfpdf

Despite initial disbelief, Pdfpdf has discovered that there is life outside of Wikipedia. Response to your communication may not be immediate.

/shortcuts
/Tools and references
WP:AIV

Picture of the day

Theodore von Kármán (1881–1963) was a Hungarian-American mathematician, aerospace engineer and physicist who worked in aeronautics and astronautics. He was responsible for crucial advances in aerodynamics characterizing supersonic airflow. The human-defined threshold of outer space is named the Kármán line in recognition of his work. This 1959 photograph shows von Kármán (left) joined by United States Air Force and NASA officials while inspecting two missile models used in the high-velocity, high-altitude wind tunnels at Arnold Air Force Base. The missiles shown are the AGARD-B and the Atlas Series-B.Photograph credit: United States Air Force; restored by Chris Woodrich

Archive – More featured pictures...

Most recent archive: User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive14

On July 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adelaide Steamship Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But we really should share the honours; you've been hard at it, too. It's still not perfect, but it's in much better shape than it was just a short time ago. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pdfpdf, thank you for mentioning your concern in my tlak page. Thanks to you I found out that soemone blanked and created a redirect page of Hila Levy which is intended to be a disambiguation page. I fixed it. The reason for the disambiguation is that there are two people with the exact same name even if one does not have an article. Hila Levy, made history when she became the first Puerto Rican to be awarded a Rhodes scholarship and has been featured in various newspaper articles as such. Being the first among her people does make her notable. Happy editing Tony the Marine (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I now see what you mean. You know sometimes I even confuse myself (smile). So, what would you suggest: "Hila Levy (military)"? Tony the Marine (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  File:Africa1913.png
• 
  File:Colonial Africa 1913 map.svg
• 
  File:ColonialAfrica 1914.png
• 
  File:ColonialAfrica.png
• File:ColonialAfrica-2.png
  File:ColonialAfrica-2.png
• 
  File:Africa Colonial.png
• 
  File:Africa 1808.jpg
• 
  File:Africa transport.png
• 
  File:Africa 1890.jpg

Hi! I understand what you're coming from, but the way I see it, the only reason IPs can't start AfDs is because they have a technical limitation (they can't create new pages). If the editor wants to start an AfD, they should be allowed to. In any case, they can explain their reasoning on the AfD page. Of course, discussing on the talk page first would be the preferable option but it seems that they've decided not to. As a personal opinion, I'm against deleting the article, but I will start the AfD for the IP if they ask me to. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP did give their reasoning on the talk page, I've completed the AfD nomination for them. The AfD entry is here. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's terrible, I completely forget writing that message! But given the "accidental" election of Ann Bressington to the state upper house fascinated me at the time, it must have been me writing that.

As far as "voting for a group below the line" goes, it would be possible to do it "manually". The voter would put the numbers 1 to x (x being 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6) in order in the column of candidates for that group below the line. I suppose that's what the quoted text refers to.

I actually found the email from the State Electoral Office and paste it here with email addresses censored:

from	Walker, Di (SEO) <Walker.Di@saugov.XX.XXX.XX>
sender time	Sent at 16:34 (GMT+09:30).
to	XXXX XXXXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXX.XXX>
date	10 April 2006 16:34
subject	RE: can't find results
mailed-by	saugov.sa.gov.au

Lisa the first preference votes for 'each' candidate are not on the web site.

Ind Nick Xenophon No Pokies group polled 167 594 above the line  ticket votes and 8 below the line = 167 602
Nick Z received 23 263 below the line first preferences , Bressington received 32 and Darley 61. Total first preferences = 190 958

regards
Di Walker 
Senior Electoral Officer - Education  
State Electoral Office (SA) 
ph: 08 8401 4315 
fax: 8401 4333 
email: Walker.Di@saugov.XX.XXX.XX 
Website:www.seo.sa.gov.au   
  
The information contained in this email message may be confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege or public interest immunity. If you are not the intended recipient,any use,disclosure or reproduction of this document,without consent of the author,is unauthorised and may be unlawful.If you have received this email in error,please advise me immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: XXXX XXXXXXXX [1]
Sent: Monday, 10 April 2006 4:01 PM
To: comments@seo.XX.XXX.XX
Subject: can't find results

I can't find out anywhere how many primary votes Ann Bressington (of the Ind Nick Xenophon No Pokies ticket) received compared to  Nick Xenophon himself. Is this available on the website and where?

Regards
Lisa

Hope that helps. Donama (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you agree with my course of action: there really wasn't a way round it. Incidentally do you have any references for that section? It really needs them. I considered removing the whole section but though it better to try and get refs first. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any headway on this? Regards, Woody (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of such clubs can be found right across Australia, but more prominent ones include:

• the Edmondson VC Club at ARTC Kapooka,
• the Middleton VC Club 1 RAAF Recruit Training Unit, RAAF Base Wagga,
• the Dunstan VC Club at Puckapunyal,
• the Hamilton VC Club at Robertson Barracks, Darwin,
• the Rattey VC Club at Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin, and
• the Hall VC Club at Victoria Barracks, Sydney.

Ummm, sorry, what? What anti-climax? If you're talking about the AfD, I don't see anything happening...? What's going on? Jafeluv (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fritzpoll (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) This is not helpful, and has been reverted. 2) Wikipedia is a volunteer site - I do pop in regularly, but am not sitting in front of a screen 24/7. You say at the top of this page that you know there is a life outside Wikipedia, yet you give me nine minutes between requesting an explanation at my talkpage and making a negative comment at my admin review. I will happily engage in discussion, and have yet to find anyone say otherwise - my archives are full of it - but with respect, I cannot spend every waking second waiting for someone to ask me a question. response to your initial inquiry is at my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Think we've got our wires crossed - see my reply

 Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I clicked on a button that I didn't intend to. However, in light of your complaining, I have given your article a second look and found several problems: a title that does not follow the Manual of Style ("NZ" instead of "New Zealand"), lack of an explanation as to what this list is, and obvious formatting problems. Moreover, the list has no references for verification, and has some obvious template problems as well. I'll assume good faith that this is a work in progress, but you might help your cause by placing an {{underconstruction}} template at the top. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: I was in a hurry on new-page patrol. Lousy excuse, but it's the best I've got today. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the clarification, Redlink, Deadlink. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:Pdfpdf/Jonathan Bonnitcha. Note that I have userfied the entire history of the deleted article, as required for attribution purposes. Please do not:

• Copy and paste text to form a new article - violates the GFDL license.
• Move the article back to articlespace without getting it checked by an admin first - otherwise you may find it rapidly deleted under a speedy deletion criterion
• Remove the {{NOINDEX}} tag that I'm putting in the article, for BLP reasons.

I'll lend you a hand upon request. Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from the Soviet General Staff. it is the operation name. If you wish, unlike other Wikipedians, you can contact Mr. Glantz himself and ask the questions. --124.183.146.14 (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be contributing to the quality of the article and not just reverting, and looking at the naming of this article without any prejudices, so just to further inform you on the subject.

Nick-D lies when he says there are no references for the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Its just that he is not aware of any. Of course there are. I can find the references for the full name although even if you look at the bibliography used by Glantz in his original paper, you will see that even the Soviet Army was not particular to use the full name.

My initial point in changing the name was that same standards used for naming articles about operations conducted by the Western Allies should be used for the operations conducted by the Red Army.

You will also note that several sources call this a 'campaign', including Soviet sources, although by definition a campaign is a rather protracted undertaking, usually taking months to execute, so why? (answer below)

How was the current name arrived at? I'm surprised you missed it because you said you had read the talk pages, including I'm sure the renaming 'consensus'. It was based on this: The current article title is lousy. I suggest renaming it to 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria'. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did try to point out that the 'Manchurian' in the Soviet name referred to the Soviet Manchuria (Northern Manchuria) because Soviet Union did not recognise the Japanese puppet state of Manchuria, and therefore could not have invaded it. This is aside from the logical POV that since they were IN Manchuria already (geographically) they could not very well be invading it, could they?

However, the most salient argument against naming the article anything with a 'war' in it remains, er...the article content! I do not understand why people argue over articles without actually reading them, or even looking at the table of contents!

An article about a war, any war, includes sections

• 1 Background
• 2 Chronology (preceding diplomatic relationships)
• 3 Pre-war events (economic aspects of going to war and sustaining it)
• 4 Course of the war (deployment of forces)
• 5 Aftermath
• 6 Impact of the war

Before you started adding content, the article was predominantly about the military operation from its August commencement date! All the rest was included in a summary and background sections, which are surely NOT what one would expect to see in an article on a war. Clearly therefore (as my logical reasoning suggests) the article is about the military operation.

Strategic had to be included because this operation, like no other, was strategic in planning and execution. In one operation the Soviet Union intended to conduct the offensive simultaneously in China, Korea and Japan. Also it was to use airborne and amphibious forces to prosecute these plans. More importantly, and still not dealt with in the article, was the strategic relocation of forces from Europe to the Far East. In Soviet literature one of the arguments for calling the operation a campaign, is that in reality it begun secretly months earlier with the commencement of troop movements from Germany.

So, if editors want to have an article on the war between Soviet Union and Japan, fine, but let it be a fully fledged article devoted to the war in general.

On the other hand, if they want to have an article on the massive operation that culminated this war, then there needs to be that article.

In trying to mix both, as usual one gets neither.

That the people who formed the renaming "consensus" did not consider this to me suggested they didn't care, but just wanted to prove a point to me that they could do anything, and get me blocked for good measure. Since then not one of the individuals forming the consensus had added a single new reference, sentence or even a word to the article while preventing me from doing so also. The proof is in the diffs as the saying goes.

You should know that this was the third in a series of the great Soviet operations article naming debates, on culmination of which I was prevented from editing and creating a great many articles on Soviet operations during the Second World War, which is where it stands now. (please reply here) Mrg3105 --121.218.129.105 (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it. Most appreciated.

I'll give it some thought before I reply. Cheers & thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO Mrg3105's comment on my talk page tacitly invited me to join this discussion, so that's what I did.

Accusing Nick-D of lying is counter-productive and it is confrontational. Besides that I agree with most of what you wrote specially the distinction between "military operations" and "war".

I live in Brazil so this is the best definition of Strategic Offensive Operation I found:

Book: Colossus reborn: the Red Army at war : 1941-1943

Author: David M. Glantz page 82

""a system of offensive operations unified by a single Stavka concept and conducted to achieve the military-political aims of a campaign"."

So the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is a system of offensive operations designed to achieve military-political goals. Such article should define this system and define its goals.

IMO the conduction of the operation falls outside of the scope of such article. So the article Soviet invasion of Manchuria or Battle of Manchuria should inform that the Soviet plans and objectives are detailed in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation article. EconomistBR 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]