Talk:Elizabeth Cosson

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: :Image:Liz Cosson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To admins and bots alike, please leave the image alone!  It now has a fair use rationale. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Liz Cosson.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opastute/bios/baker.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Elizabeth Cosson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100216232903/http://www.defence.gov.au:80/leaders/other/elizabethCosson/index.htm to http://www.defence.gov.au/leaders/other/elizabethCosson/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The use of Australian Defence Force rank, post-retirement or post-separation, is somewhat improper (should only be used by serving uniformed ADF personnel in the permanent forces, or if a member of the Active Reserve - when on duty or when there is a connection between that service).
Retired or post-separation personnel should use (Retd) or (Retired) if rank is used (after the rank, which is to be preferred, or at the end of all post-nominals) to identify they are no longer a serving member - see Northern Territory Strategic Defence Advisory Board for examples. Ideally, rank titles of former serving personnel (outside of former Chiefs of Service or Chiefs of Defence Force, who have their title honorarily retained under Defence Regulations r.33) should not be used in article titles, section or infobox headers, or as the first thing in the lead (preferably to in a 2nd or 3rd paragraph which addresses their military service, or to appear in their military history section) expect in very limited circumstances.
This is especially the case when a former ADF member has gone on to other civilian careers and that is what they are known for now, as is the case for Ms Cosson, who is now a career public servant (having post-separation worked for Veterans’ Affairs, then Health, then Immigration and Border Protection, and then come back to Veterans’ Affairs) Kangaresearch (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Rank post-ADF employment

message: Editors, please abide by WP:RVREASONS. One word or blank edit summary reasons, for anything other than a minor edit, are contrary to WP:RVREASONS. It is good practice, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, to discuss significant changes on the Talk page, to recent edits before hitting the publish button.
As this article is undergoing a major re-write, and is still a work in progress, it is preferred contributions by other editors are held off on until 2 June 2020, unless there is an urgent compelling reason to do so (emergency edit). Kangaresearch (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:RVREASONS

message: Image would be nice if we could get one (if none are free could claim under fair use). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you do a Google search to see if you find one you like, since I have other taskings from you, and I’m still not that familiar with the images side. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If no free images can be found this one could be claimed as non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is under Crown copyright and a bit dated, since she has been 10 years out of the military. There is a really nice head to toe one (she is short so it is not too big lol) I saw of her in an Annual Report but same issue - Crown copyright. Neither could be uploaded to WikiCommons and even for non-free you get into issues around how much you are using of someone else’s copyrighted image (the low res thing). A free image is a lot less headache, and I’ve tried the non-free upload before only to have the image disappear so as you have been around longer, can you look at that. It is just not something I am really across, apart from the background (I’ve seen a lot of so called free images on Wikipedia as well, that are of still copyrighted material, so I know I’m not alone with lack of finesse with uploading). The only easy ones are the historic photos (but you hit an empty well there with a modern figure - I do have a free image of her late father though but that’s not much use for the info box). Kangaresearch (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, non-free images are typically harder to justify for living people given that in theory a free image could be created of them. Let's flag this in case someone local might have that opportunity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an earlier image request box at the start of this talk page from a few years ago, to which no takers appeared, so it is likely to be a very slim hope - especially since this article page gets very low readership, and the talk page much much less. But I agree with you a good quality recent image would be very nice, but the Manual of Style does note that this is an issue for LPB pages and not to stress too much about it (but one little picture isn’t too much to ask). I know others have fudged a non-free one in (as a free image) but I don’t think either of us would be keen about that. Kangaresearch (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format: Free Image (or Non-Free Fair Use Image) of Elizabeth Cosson

message: without dates Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this personal preference or is there some Wikipedia guideline you are referring to? I had a look but couldn’t find any so if you can advise. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again per typical usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So not from the Manual of Style? While this more of an open issue (no legislative instrument that says this is how this qualification is to be cited), beyond a personal wish to do so, given no consensus guideline or rule, is removing 7 characters that gives location information to what follows, reducing precision going to add anything (as opposed to degrading what is there). If you could expand a little, to give insight. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format: Known For

message: Also when you say military service section can you break this down (we don’t want things cropping up later). Kangaresearch (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , . Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no issues with the current branch_label? I know you North Americans want to use Branch for Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, but in Australia it is Service, as branch is used for internal components within a Service (for example, Supply Branch). As an article about an Australian person, who was in the Australian Defence Force (fair enough if it as US military), the correct classification used in Australia should be used Kangaresearch (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format - Military box (fields other than rank)

message: All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kangaresearch...Your edit summary here... ought not be included unless a more reliable source can be located.Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkimaria After review, the debridement you refer to specifically says it does not refer to publications of similar names (the debridement is on the UK Daily Mail and UK Mail Online - which are both different from the Australian masthead)... [Can you] identify what in this specific article, which is consistent with the authoritative source (the legislative instrument, which it is grouped with in its reference group)...[, what] ...in the cite-quote or the article itself that is inaccurate, misleading, or untenable... As stated in edit summary comments, it is not required to verify the Secretary band that the Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is in (that is covered by the legislative instrument reference...), but the legislative instrument alone is not proper citation for the specific salary, as it requires confirmation of both Band and Pay Point (I have verified the pay point is correct, but the issue is that finding an *open* source for that specific element is only to be found in this news article [it being something of a not particularly fascinating point for news coverage, peer-reviewed journal discussion, etc]... I didn’t go to this specific reference as my first stop, but followed the hierarchy of reference sources as is normal practice (but after being unable to find anything else better on the specific pay point, beyond my own research verification, this is the only option - it is not a stand-alone reference, it is in conjunction with the best quality reference, but its omission makes the primary reference weaker as we have only half the equation otherwise, and that would just be bad referencing). Kangaresearch (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  RSP refers specifically to MailOnline (dailymail.co.uk) - what leads you to believe that does not include Australian content at that site? I am not aware of any such exemption being discussed, and on a quick review of RSN archives have not seen any. WP:BLP directs us to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.", and the current consensus regarding dailymail.co.uk is that it does not meet that bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just checked the reference mark-up and saw it is actually pointed to the co.uk address, despite it being content that was produced here in the Australian office (my bad, I missed that). That does address some confusion. I do think we need to be clear between what is a rule (no deviation), what is a guideline (principle based interpretative aid, to which due regard must be given), and what is commentary on the preceding (some value, but not the same as a blanket rule) and make sure we are clearly representing these when discussing them. Before diving deeper however, can you answer whether from the legislative instrument alone you know which pay-point within that Band (of which there are three) the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs is on? Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, as per your comment above, and per WP:BLPPRIMARY, I feel it would be inappropriate to cite this information solely to that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which information specifically are you referring to? The Band 2, or the pay-point within it? Kangaresearch (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that this individual has a particular salary. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To confirm, you are claiming the legislative instrument doesn’t do this? Is it your opinion now that it is irrelevant whether the references are accurate? The only criterion for you is the web address that one of the references relate to - it is banned as far as you are concerned? If I can find the same information from another news site, you don’t have an objection? Kangaresearch (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is that the current sourcing is not appropriate for including this parameter. Happy to consider an alternate source if one is available - I wouldn't want to make a blanket yes-or-no statement without seeing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can assist me, I’d be grateful - what is it you are looking for, specifically, as I wouldn’t like to just waste large amounts of time trying to find something to satisfy you if you don’t know what it is yet you want satisfied (that’s a much harder task) - but also, if I could have some specifics here, I’m far more likely to find it (since accuracy is not relevant from your viewpoint, but source is something very important to you). It would really help for you to say what you are looking for, as you’ve made it clear what you aren’t (so that part doesn’t need anything more). Can you suggest some parameters since I take it you are leaving it to me to find it. Appreciate anything specific you can give. Kangaresearch (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable (not deprecated, published but not self-published) secondary source stating that Elizabeth Cosson makes $X per year, ideally with the year being recent. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like that still leaves much up to your own (after the fact) interpretation, so can you give me something firmer and more specific? Can it be a newspaper not depreciated (or will no newspaper satisfy you?); [not something to be found in a peer reviewed journal so we’ll scratch that one]; A personal profile done by a museum or gallery?; etc. And again the meaning of the term recent is open to interpretation and as it is you that wishes to be satisfied, some firm guidance from you is necessary so this doesn’t just run in circles as it has so far. So don’t rush an answer, but please think about what you want specifically, provide sufficient detail and I’ll find one or two things for your approval (as you wish it to be) if possible. Think examples if you have a poor knowledge of Australian media or references (since you are not an Australian) - like you did with redistricting (because that was illustrative). Kangaresearch (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is unfortunately no comprehensive list of reliable sources. However, if you insist: a source from within the last five years with a green check at RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s good enough, it contains sufficient information to proceed with (it was just too vague before), so thanks for giving further clarity to your earlier response. I don’t know if WP:RSP has much to say about Australian sources though, given the ethnocentrism, but I’ll check and circle back to you if its got nothing, or just one or two. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-Box Salary (Reference: Pay-point for Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs)

message: All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this edit, not going to push too hard on this but as the relatives don't appear to be notable I don't see a strong rationale for inclusion here, given MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and conventions regarding biographical infoboxes (compare the documentation for ) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is why I highlight the danger of jumping in too early, you can’t see where I’m going, and it wasn’t discussed - so you would have had to make some guesses. That’s why I jumped ahead and added some section text (even though I didn’t want to until I caught up with temporarily referencing the info-box and the lead first) to give you some insight. Cosson’s family history is quite famous (more than I realised even myself when I first started) - she comes from a long military pedigree and it not only gives insight into her reasons for joining the ADF, but also about how that career progressed. However I agree that living relatives with no significant contribution to these things don’t merit inclusion in a finished article (but as mentioned above, some biographical facts have been in placeholders as I work out their details to determine this - they’ve been mentioned by Cosson in interviews and biographical profiles as being relevant to her, but whether they are relevant in a way that contributes to comprehension for this article in its finished point is pending). I recommend waiting until research is completed and then looking at the main body (when done) to come to an opinion. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . This is excellent advice... Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, let us honour it in full going forward. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly off-topic, but brief - your last four paragraphs of 02:15 29 May 2020 were how I wished it started out, so thank you for that, as they were directly relevant, gave clarity and were uncontentious. I have no reason to suspect mine made at this time are anything but the same. Let us keep this going. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Significance of family history

message: Re: edit of 11:33 28 May 2020 (revision 959357485) - was inherited from old infobox, where both appeared, and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (I don’t see a need to constantly draw attention to gongs) Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit removes material duplicated between that parameter and . Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As mentioned, it was part of the original info-box (reference added by me aside), and as you noted from my original reply I had no objection to it going when it is available both in the lead and at the top of the infobox (albeit in post-nominal form). I’ll be adding an Honours and Awards box to the body (you know, the one with thumbnails of the ribbons, etc) when I get time eventually. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format: Honours & Awards [SUSPENDED]

message: Re: edit of 11:27 28 May 2020 (revision 959356630) was inherited from old infobox and was not my edit (apart from adding footnotes), but if you want to remove it I don’t have objection (thanks for the WP:INFOBOXNTLY reference - this is the benefit of having edit summary fields that are more meaningful that vague and non-descriptive ones like  "trim") Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this edit I assume based on your post above that you do not object. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As previously mentioned, it was part of the original info-box (reference added by me aside), and as you noted from my original reply I read and thanked you for the WP:INFOBOXNTLY wiki-link, and agreed with your edit (I had not seen that sub-section, and as many of the Australian articles I’ve seen have them, didn’t remove it when changing over the military info-box to an officeholder info-box). Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format: Nationality [SUSPENDED]

message: Re: edit of 11:32 28 May 2020 (revision 959357307) - was inherited from old infobox, and was not my edit, and agree it is common enough, even if LP subject likes to make a thing of it (repeatedly mentioned in bio pieces she participates in, to draw attention to the fact she likes informality) Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this edit I assume based on your post above that you do not object. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As mentioned, it was part of the original info-box, and as per my previously given comments I have no objection to something so trite going. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format: Nickname [SUSPENDED]

message: All other edits made by you (1130 28 May 2020 - 1129 28 May 2020 - 1126 28 May 2020 Revision 959356477) are covered by my edit summary fields entered. Kangaresearch (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this edit, don't object to your amendment Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe you are referring to this diff . As a Canadian, I don’t expect you to be across the unique nomenclatures of the various public services in Australia (unless you’ve ever been in the APS, it is not something an average person would clock either) but it is important to be accurate and that is a proper noun title, but - public official - with wiki-link to APS seemed a reasonable comprise to make. Kangaresearch (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Nikkimaria Can we close this element now, if you have no objection? I’m going to move closed sections to the bottom so the live ones remain at the top. Kangaresearch (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve temporarily closed this now (may be re-opened by anyone at any time) as a suspended topic. Will move to the end of this section shortly. Kangaresearch (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Info-box format: Occupation [SUSPENDED]

message: Dear Editors, when publishing changes/reversions please take the time to use the edit summary field properly (one should never edit in haste, after all, so if you don’t have the time to enter a clear and plain English edit summary, you don’t really have the time to publish an edit or reversion).
The edit summary field should not use jargon, if plain English is available (unless jargon is universally understood by everyone - example: NATO), abbreviations, unnecessarily obscure or arcane words (when plain English is readily available, show your intelligence in your edits, not in obscure and uncommon words) or be indecipherable or cryptic.
An edit summary field should, without requiring you to look at the edit itself, give you a good idea of the what and the why of the change on its own. It takes only seconds to write a good one. Thanks for your consideration in advance, your fellow Wikipedians will appreciate it (especially on this page). Kangaresearch (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary fields for edits/reversions to [[Elizabeth Cosson]]