Antrim Kate

Senior officer biographies

I notice that you are removing some text from the biographies of certain senior officers. I think if you take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) you will find that prose is generally preferred to lists and is certainly preferred where the article was written in good prose in the first place. A good example of how an article should be written is Mike Jackson. If you use list form it just means someone who is trying to work the article up to featured article status will have to re-integrate the list. Don't get me wrong - the material you are adding is excellent - it just needs to be in prose form. Dormskirk (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers - they're definitely useful. For information, what I was trying to do was relegate those sections of the biographies that were essentially only lists (albeit written in prose) to just leave the more interesting parts of their careers, but not to worry. Before I go back, are you saying that a list is not appropriate at all in these articles, or merely that I should make sure that everything of note is included in the prose sections? Thanks for your help. Antrim Kate (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I confirm that I am saying that a list is really not appropriate at all. The material that you have added is so comprehensive and well sourced that I think you will find that, once integrated, you have created some excellent prose articles. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done. The article on Simon Bryant looks really good now. Great job. Dormskirk (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to admit it does look a lot better that way - I just needed to overcome my instinct to simply arrange everything into lists, and actually write a bit of a story. (It makes it easier to fudge things where the dates aren't exact as well!) Might have a go at one of the others later... Antrim Kate (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Dalton

Well done on a good job on the Stephen Dalton article. Dormskirk (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - nice to be appreciated. Antrim Kate (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Offended - moi?

Kate, don't worry I'm not offended :-) As you quite rightly state, expressing humour in the written forum isn't easy to do or spot. NtheP (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my incorrect edit about the number of men who have orbited the moon

I will more carefully read an article before I try to edit it next time.

I am the guy who edited how many people orbited the moon

Thanks for your kind words. I wasn't offended but I did feel foolish for not realizing the possibility that some guys went twice. Its still hard to believe three did. I am sure that there was a huge flurry of activity after Neil Armstrong died. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjminardi (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Timo Anderson

Hello, I like the way you have tided up his bio however you have deleted the fact he was educated at Belfast Royal Academy and also the alumni category link. Was there a reason for doing this or was it an oversight? I feel they ought to be reinstated - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliftonville (talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for that. I did take that out, along with some other unsourced stuff, but I was probably being a bit harsh, especially seeing as it was categorised. Have you got a source to support it? Or is him appearing under 'Famous Alumni' in the BRA article enough? I certainly won't object to it going back in. Regards, Antrim Kate (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry to say I do not have a source for his education at BRA other than "common knowledge" amongst other old boys of the school - is that sufficient? I'm watching his career with interest as his new appointment when he leaves the Military Aviation Authority will be (hopefully) further promotion and he maybe in line for Dalton's job... Thanks --Cliftonville (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure! I've slipped the info back in though. I think you could be right about what happens next - I don't have any inside line, but I'd certainly expect Dalton to retire soon, and Anderson is at the top of quite a short list to succeed him. Pulford and Garwood have been in post a while now though, so it'll be interesting to see what happens to them as well. All the Best, Antrim Kate (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Colonial independence

I just thought I'd mention to you that some of us colonials are fiercely independent, and don't like some of the ways that some Americans do some things (despite what our political leaders proclaim). Similarly, there are some things that some of the Brits do that don't fill some of us with enthusiasm. Hence, you will find that there are situations where some of us have decided that we have our own consensus about how we will do some things. Hopefully, this helps explain to you why some things have been done differently from what you might expect. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair - always a place for some independent thought. The trick is getting the balance between challenging something and sticking with what's working, and also between putting your own views and listening to what other people have to contribute. Not sure what's best if the choice is between coming to a compromise and agreeing to disagree, though. Are you just randomly befriending people who live at the top of the planet, or was there a particular reason for dropping me a line? Cheers, Antrim Kate (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you just randomly ... - On no, not randomly, but if asked for a definition of my selection criterion, I'd be hard pressed to provide one! As a first pass, I'd say it had something to do with you asking reasonable questions in a polite manner, and conveying the impression that you had an open mind and would be interested in reading and thinking about the answers. (If you hadn't already noticed, these characteristics are not commonly displayed on wikipedia talk pages.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Antrim Kate. 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)