User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dormskirk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Hello. Thank you for creating Tedworth House. Do you know if it is a listed building? Also, should the history of the Tedworth Hunt be added to this article, or created as a separate article in your opinion? (But hopefully less sensationalistic than this.) Please reply on my talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, do you know who Edward Studd was? Do you have his dates of birth and death please? I am not sure what is meant by 'planter'--I have only ever come across that word for plantation owners in the American South. It sounds intriguing. I'm guessing he was not the cricket player who has a Wikipedia page with the same name.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have now expanded the article to say that it is a Grade II* listed building. Tedworth Hunt should be the subject of a separate article because it is unconnected with the building which is now a help for heroes centre. Unfortunately I do not have any further information on Edward Studd but he cannot be the cricketer as the cricketer died much more recently. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
77th Brigade formerly Security Assistance Group
I would like to gain your support over the 77th Brigade article, which was created not by me but is actually a renaming and reformation of the SAG article I formed up last year. A user named Gareth keeps adding it is Psychological warfare which it is clearly not as I stated in the SAG article and new links.Phd8511 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Surely one of its units is 15 Psychological Operations Group (15 POG)? So won't it be involved in psychological warfare? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- NO it is not. I edit but those people keep reverting. If they want un-educated articles they are such losers.Phd8511 (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Does 77th Brigade have no command and control responsibility over 15 Psychological Operations Group then? Isn't that a bit irresponsible. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Changes to Promethean World
Since you do not like the changes that I made to Promethean World information and have chosen to delete that information which is current and true. I ask you to at least look into the [File:Proetheanlogo.png logo] which you uploaded to the Promethean World page in 2010 and at the very least update it to something that Promethean has used in recent history. This time perhaps you will spell the name correctly on the file that you upload. Here is a link where you can find the logo independent of the Promethean corporate website. There are people from around the world using the incorrect logo they find here on Wikipedia. It should be changed to the logo that Promethean has used since at least as early as the 4th quarter of 2011. Truemoss (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - I have now updated the logo and hopefully got the spelling right this time; apologies it was wrong before. Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank You. Truemoss (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Kitchener
I understand that Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener is an assessed article; however, I think the portrait I posted is more effective than the formal portrait. It's iconic, and, whether or not it has all his awards, you know it's Kitchener. And it draws your attention; it's a great feature with which to start the article, if nothing else. I do apologize for doing so unilaterally, though. Stolengood (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Many weeks of work went into getting the article on KItchener to the required standard to pass assessment as a "B" article and yet you have imposed an image, which in my view lowers the standard, in a second. But Wikipedia is democratic and I suppose you are at liberty to undo all those efforts. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This was the commander of the Tenth Submarine Flotilla at Malta who went on to be Flag Officer Submarines and COMSUBEASTLANT. Do you have anything on him? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - I suspect you will have already seen this: [1]. I don't have anything else. Sorry. Dormskirk (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on this. And the slap on the wrist. Because the awards section I added was a summary of referenced info, I hadn't troubled to repeat the citations; worse, the Freeman entries were not otherwise ref'd. Must try better. I've reinstated them with the refs and added the DSO citation from "Air of Authority". Hope this suffices. I can see the point of downgrading when unref'd info is added, but I hope that the guilty editor is advised and allowed to do a repair. Cheers. Folks at 137 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This was moved to Serco Group at your request. Why do you want it moving back? Just Chilling (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Sorry for any confusion. I am asking for it to be moved to from Serco Group to Serco (as explained on the talk page). Hope that clarifies things. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Many thanks for sorting it. Dormskirk (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Dormskirk, DGSteel added a Freeman of the City of London yesterday, you reverted this because it is not independently sourced as required by WP:BLP. However, David Steel bio in official Royal Navy site mentioned a Freeman of the City of London-reference no 1 but that David Steel bio in Royal Navy site been replaced with new Second Sea Lord now. However you can see the cache of Second Sea Lord Royal Navy page in archive.org/wayback machine. Does this mean we could add a Freeman of the City of London back to the page? Thanks. Cheers. Ikatemag (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes - I have added it back: thanks for finding the reference. Dormskirk (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have question about WP:BLP, can LinkedIn profile page be considered as reference in Wikipedia? Ikatemag (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - WP:SOURCE requires articles to be sourced from "reliable, third-party, published sources". I would have thought that LinkedIn fails the "third party" test so cannot be used. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Dormskirk - I have question in Talk page of David Steel (Royal Navy officer) about WP:CREDENTIAL. Is it ok if I wrote question like that in the BLP talk page? I still have a little bit confusion about some rules in Wikipedia. I hope you understand. Thanks Ikatemag (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Yes. Of course. That would be a good place to open any debate on this. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Dormskirk - I have question in Talk page of David Steel (Royal Navy officer) about WP:CREDENTIAL. Is it ok if I wrote question like that in the BLP talk page? I still have a little bit confusion about some rules in Wikipedia. I hope you understand. Thanks Ikatemag (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - WP:SOURCE requires articles to be sourced from "reliable, third-party, published sources". I would have thought that LinkedIn fails the "third party" test so cannot be used. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have question about WP:BLP, can LinkedIn profile page be considered as reference in Wikipedia? Ikatemag (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
FM Sir Patrick Grant
I've been to the cemetery and have taken a photograph of Sir Patrick Grant's memorial, it's just that I haven't uploaded it to Wikipedia yet. ViennaUK (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - You still need a source. This article has been expanded and assessed as "B" on the quality scale. It will be downgraded if any unsourced material is added so please don't add unsourced material. That said I have found a source and therefore re-inserted your text. The photo would be very welcome and would actually be better. Dormskirk (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Help with Accenture
Hi there, Dormskirk. I've seen you help with company articles before, and I was wondering if you had some time to look over a message I just posted to the Accenture Talk page. There are several edits I'm requesting, including updating outdated information and correcting some inaccuracies. I'd appreciate any feedback or help you can provide. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Please see my comments on the Accenture talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Merchiston Castle School
I noticed that you reverted a change made by an IP. I looked at that change yesterday and raised an eyebrow myself. A quick look at the source clearly states that there are 6 houses and lists each one except the "Pringle Center" that the IP had removed. Jcmcc (Talk) 06:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
Thank you very much for helping with the page KAZ Minerals! Aya Nurpeissova (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
- No problem. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
IG Group
Hey Dormskirk, we made substantial factual changes to the IG Group page recently (including adding information about moving into stockbroking). In IG we do all our wikipedia updates similarly and that is by declaring our potential conflict of interest when challenged and sticking to factual updates.
We respect your right to make the changes you see fit but was wondering how best to go about this process as these changes still need to be made. PLease advise?
Thank you,
- Hi - Thanks for your query. You should not make any changes to the article if you are an employee of the company: please read WP:COI which explains why employees should not edit articles about the company for which they work. Nor should any changes be made which promote the company's products as this would breach WP:ADVERT. Finally all information should be independently sourced as required by WP:SOURCE. If there any changes that you would like to propose then please suggest them on the article talk page (citing an independent source we can use). A good example of this being done well can be seen at Talk:Accenture. By the way I have added something on the stockbroking platform now. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
hi Dormskirk, thank you for adding the stockbroking reference and for the general advice. I will use the Talk page to suggest area where we could improve the article.
A kitten for you!
Thank you again for all your help.
Best,
Hayley
HayleySandford (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for the kitten! Dormskirk (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
TBC Bank
Hi Dormskirk,
As you are interested in topic of finance, could you please review this article on matters of advertising text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBC_Bank Thanks SGNII (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - I have removed unsoured material which seemed largely promotional. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hambro family
Hello. I have noticed that you created Carl Joachim Hambro (banker). Are you interested in helping out more with in-line referenced content and possibly pictures? I have created Category:Hambro family, including some new referenced pages.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Btw, I also created Dixton Manor and Delcombe Manor. Do you think Kidbrooke Park should have a separate page from Michael Hall (school) (see [2])? And Dumbleton Hall from Dumbleton? I would say so, but not sure I can retrieve their histories.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Please feel free to expand Carl Joachim Hambro if you have more well-sourced material. Re Kidbrooke Park I doubt if a separate article is needed but, if you have more material to justify a separate article on Dumbleton Hall, that would be good. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Thank you HayleySandford (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
- Hayley - Very many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Dormskirk, concerning your revert here, with the comment:
- remove unwikified and unsourced text: please read WP:SOURCE
please note:
- I am not aware of any policies requiring removal of unwikified source
- The text added was sourced. A reference to the Dictionary of National Biography was included in my edit. This was also pointed out by User:Opera hat
Therefore, your edit was reverted. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how expanding an article according to wikipedia policy (public domain text, properly referenced) can be counted as destroying the hard work of others. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, as I pointed out, in line citation (as required by WP:SOURCE) was added. Please take a second look to the text that you reverted. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- All you have done is a cut and paste job. As previously explained, you need to use a variety of sources, in-line citations and proper wikilinks. There would be no point in wikipedia if everything was a cut and paste from public domain sources. Dormskirk (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Greene King
I’ve reinstated the information on Greene King which you’ve twice deleted quoting WP:SOURCE. I’ve added a further independent reference, specifically Spirit’s own communication to its shareholders describing Greene King and the proposed acquisition, which is still not complete.
I see from your user page that you have updated the infoboxes of every FTSE100 and FTSE250 company. That’s a great piece of work and a good contribution to Wikipedia. But how exactly have you done this consistently with your interpretation of WP:SOURCE? Because I would guess that the original source of each piece of information must have come from the company itself, and whilst you could no doubt find the same information in press comments or whatever, those articles are surely just repeating the figures they’ve got from the company.
So far as Greene King is concerned, I think you’ve quoted the company’s figures for turnover, but you don’t seem to think I should quote its figures for numbers of pubs, details of its acquisition or its own description of its strategy. Swinnow16 (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi- Thank you for your comments on my talk page. WP:SOURCE is pretty clear that information should come from an independent source. Given that revenue, operating income and profit figures are a standard feature of the information box and they cannot be obtained from anywhere other than independent audited financial statements there is no alternative but to take these figures from there. However as far as any other information is concerned then I think it is essential to observe both the letter and spirit of WP:SOURCE. It takes a huge amount of time to keep 350 articles up to date and to ensure that unsourced (and often misleading) information is removed on a timely basis. I am very glad you have raised this issue with me but very surprised that you have chosen to take a different view. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thank you so much for your help. Hayley
HayleySandford (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Writer's Barnstar |
| Dear Dormskirk
I found your entry for Col.Alexander Shaw and as he was eldest brother of my 4th great grandfather Maj.General Aeneas Shaw UEL.Are you related to the Shaws'. Regards Richard Shaw UE Rjsm53 (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) |
- Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Slessor
Hi there, I was just looking over the John Slessor article and thinking to myself there's no reason it shouldn't be GA, so I did a bit of polishing and was wondering if you'd care to co-nom with me at GAN -- if you'd like to tweak it further, no prob, but I think it's pretty well there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Following up, we now have a GA to our credit with our mutual friend here! I've also nominated for DYK, so pls feel free to tweak the hook, or add an alternative, if you feel like it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - That's great news about Slessor - GA and DYN! Thanks for the update. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia
Hello, Dormskirk. :) I see that CorenSearchBot recently flagged a copyright problem with the article you created at Chippenham Park. The problem was not precisely what the bot thought it was - rather, it is that you copied content from one page on Wikipedia to another without giving attribution. Wikipedia's content is not public domain; it is owned by the people who write the material, but liberally licensed so that others can reuse and modify it. In order to do so, though, we have to meet the terms of the license, and attribution is one of those key requirements. You cannot copy text from one article to another without providing at least a direct link in the edit summary to the original unless you are the sole author of that content. If the content you copy is substantial, you should also acknowledge the copying on the talk pages of the articles to help ensure attribution is maintained. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia talks a little bit about why this is and also how to give attribution.
Fortunately, this is not a difficult problem to repair, even after the fact. I have repaired this one, but if you have previously copied content from one article to another, even if a long time ago, please go back and attribute so that the terms of the license are met.
Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Many thanks for the advice. Yes, I was just moving material from one article to another. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Thank you again for your help - Hayley HayleySandford (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC) |
- Hi Hayley - Many thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
DYK for John Slessor
 | On 30 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Slessor, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Second Lieutenant (later Marshal of the Royal Air Force) John Slessor (pictured) was lame as a result of polio and only gained his commission in 1915 with the help of family connections? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Slessor. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!
Greetings!
I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.
- Browse the new WikiProject page
- Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system
Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
HellermannTyton is
Hi Dormskirk, Delphi Automotive Agrees to Buy HellermannTyton for $1.7 Billion, as native speaker english, and with your knowledge about the FTSE 250 Index you might be a much better author than me. (c; best wishes, Paul --Paul HT (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/business/dealbook/delphi-automotive-agrees-to-buy-hellermanntyton-for-1-7-billion.html?partner=rss&_r=0 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/30/british-cable-firm-snapped-up-in-drive-for-intelligent-cars http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/business/dealbook/whiff-of-dot-com-fever-in-delphi-deal.html?_r=0
- Hi - Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This is really cool, thx --Paul HT (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig
Why would I do that? I still think it's excess detail. And obviously I can't say whether I'll revert your future edits until I see them. Britmax (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Newcastle Castle (in Newcastle)
(that is, the castle that put the -castle in “Newcastle”)
Hello there: I've been thinking about this; I feel I may have over-reacted a bit, which isn't a good thing.
One possible solution, if there is any evidence at all that the new name has some common currency, would be (seeing as it gets about ten times as many views as the one in Wales) to move The Castle, Newcastle to Newcastle Castle (losing the dab page, per WP:TWODAB) and put a hatnote on it to the one in Bridgend. What do you reckon?
The only problem I can see is if we subsequently acquire articles on all the other new castles dotted around; but WP is very much about the here and now, I suppose... Swanny18 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Thanks for this. Yes, I think the solution you are proposing is a good one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
reFill
Hi Dormskirk. I noticed that you fixed a bare url that I recently added using a tool called reFill which is apparently the new Reflinks - thank you for that. As a former devotee of Reflinks I'm keen to learn how reFill works. Do you have to feed it a url to generate a full ref or can it be installed in your browser toolbar to automatically scan and update a page a la Reflinks? Thanks. danno_uk 21:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - It is very easy to use. Here is the link: [3]. Just input the article name, then click "fix page", then click "Preview / save on wiki" and then click "save page". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you again, most helpful! danno_uk 22:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Lord Edward Somerset and London Gazette
I am currently trying to translate the article about Lord Edward Somerset to Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål (Norwegian) and I try to find sources for promotions in The London Gazette. I have found some, but some entries I do not quite understand. Like this one:
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/15222/page/48
"20/h Ditto, Captain Allan Cameron, from the 66th Foot, to be Major, without Purchase, vice Lord Edward Somerset, appointed to the 12th Light Dragoons."
What does Ditto here means, is it the date (20 December) or is it some unit? And while I am at it, what does vice implies? I looked up the help pages but I get no viser, if you could help me out I would be most happy about that. What I try to pinpoint is a source for the last part of this statement (the transfer to the 28th light dragoons):
- He was aide-de-camp to the Duke of York in the expedition to Holland in 1799, and was given a majority in the 12th light dragoons in November, from which he was transferred twelve months afterwards to the 28th light dragoons.
-from this article about him:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Somerset,_Robert_Edward_Henry_(DNB00)
Any help would be much appreciated! Ulflarsen (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Ditto means "the same as above" i.e. in this case "Regiment of Light Dragoons". "vice" means "to replace" so the gazette entry means: "20th Regiment of Light Dragoons: Captain Allan Cameron appointed to the 20th Regiment of Light Dragoons to replace Lord Edward Somerset, who has been appointed to the 12th Light Dragoons". Here is his appointment to the 28th Light Dragoons in November 1800: [4]. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, the meaning seemed to be about what I expected, good to have it confirmed. I currently work on writing articles connected to the Battle of Waterloo and I do what I can so they are well supported by sources. Thanks again and best wishes! Ulflarsen (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
paraphrase
hi dear friend
could you please paraphrase "it was intended to be consulted as the texts changed". thank you Alborzagros (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Please can you give me some context. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reply. you can see dome context here (over there in lid). thank you Alborzagros (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - It is not a subject on which I have any expertise but I would say “It was intended that the Ormulum would form a specialist resource which scholars could consult as and when biblical texts were being developed”. Dormskirk (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the feedback on the RELX/RELX Group/Reed Elsevier renaming. Now the content is all a bit confusing, would you be able to help us with getting everything accurate again? Obviously we want to avoid any conflict of interest and help Wikipedia get the best information they can about the company. If we point out which parts are still accurate (which will basically be the content from the deleted RELX Group page) and which bits aren't any more, would you be able to help sort that out? Also with any references that you think should be changed - there may be alternate sources that could be used for some of them. Thanks again Ryoba (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - No problem. You can still suggest amendments to the article even if you have a conflict of interest. The best way to do this is to list each suggested amendment together with an independent source at Talk:RELX Group. A good example of this in practice can be found at Talk:Aviva. Please give us a few suggestions at a time though because wikipedia editors will need to check through them! I hope this helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Deployments of the British Military
Hello,
I saw this article (Deployments of the British Military) earlier looks familiar doesn't it? Gavbadger (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Well spotted. I would suggest the text is deleted and a redirect to List of British Army installations inserted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Trafigura
Hi Dormskirk, I noticed that you'd edited Glencore a while back. I'm a PR representative and one of my clients is Trafigura – I was working with a couple of editors on this article for a few months, in particular CorporateM who's now taken a step back from voluntary editing. I've suggested one or two updates and additions to the article here on the talk page, which I haven't been able to get any one to review yet having tried previous editors and posted here on COIN. I wonder if you might be willing to take a look? Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks very much for your help – agree that number of countries/offices isn't appropriate for history, but perhaps Trafigura operates from 65 offices in 36 countries.[1] could go at the top of the Business Activities section?
- ^ "Trafigura 2014 Annual Report" (PDF). Irish Stock Exchange. 2014. Retrieved 29 September 2015.
HOgilvy (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Largely done. I have also cleaned up the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks, on the corporate structure – it is very out of date and I wonder if it might be appropriate to replace it with this as per the most recent prospectus on the ISE website. It's a primary source but probably appropriate for info like this? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As you say, it is a primary source so cannot really be used. Dormskirk (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not even for info like this which secondary sources never report? Just referring back to CorporateM's comment here. Understand if not. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is a matter of opinion but I really prefer to see minimal use of primary sources - ideally just for infobox material. Dormskirk (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure no problem, thanks again for taking a look.HOgilvy (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is a matter of opinion but I really prefer to see minimal use of primary sources - ideally just for infobox material. Dormskirk (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not even for info like this which secondary sources never report? Just referring back to CorporateM's comment here. Understand if not. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- As you say, it is a primary source so cannot really be used. Dormskirk (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks, on the corporate structure – it is very out of date and I wonder if it might be appropriate to replace it with this as per the most recent prospectus on the ISE website. It's a primary source but probably appropriate for info like this? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Largely done. I have also cleaned up the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Claude Dauphin
Hi Dormskirk, a major edit has been made to Claude Dauphin, where the editor has added 300 words or so of POV content on his career, almost all of it unreferenced. There are plenty of obituaries and other reliable sources available with which to expand the article and I'm happy to work with you or anyone else to do that, but this latest edit is poor. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - I have removed the unsourced material. Fine for the article to be expanded but material needs to be properly sourced. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Awards in Infobox
Hi Dormskirk, does Awards paramater only show most senior grade of orders of chivalry in its list? e.g an officer has Knight Commander of the Order of The British Empire and Commander of the Order of The British Empire, can both be listed in Awards parameters? or only most senior grade (Knight Commander) can be listed in Awards parameter? Can you point out to me guildlines on Wikipedia about this? I read WP:BLP of Royal Navy officers, all of them who have Knight Commander and Commander, only show Knight Commander? What if I add both Knight Commander and Commander, do I violate Wiki guidelines? Thank you.Ikatemag (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - It is nothing to do with Wiki guidelines. It is to do with the Orders of Chivalry - if you are advanced from Companion of the Bath (CB) to Knight Commander of the Bath (KCB) then you cease to be a Companion of the Bath so it would be wrong to include Companion of the Bath in the awards list in the infobox. The same with ranks: if you are promoted from major-general to lieutenant-general you cease to be a major-general so it would be wrong to include major-general as a rank in the infobox. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Royal Artillery historians
I was wondering whether there was a group of administrators who are British military historians? I have created several pages on Wikipedia which uses original research from a book. The Royal Artillery Historical Society, FEPOW, and POW Research Network Japan have endorsed the research but there are a few (mostly Australian and American) amateur historians and Wikipedia administrators who have taken it upon themselves to remove any reference to the research, even through the author has shared the raw research on the book's website. Any suggestions? --TheBlackandSilver (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
- Administrators are people with the technical ability to perform certain special actions on the English Wikipedia. You would expect them to be IT experts rather than historians. If you can let me know which article you are referring to then I can take a look for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Reversion of edits to Charles Buckner
I think you misunderstand wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources does not require sources for everything. The additions I made are easily verifiable and if you believe they are controversial, I would like to hear your reasons why.
"Wikipedia requires material to be verifiable. This means adding some form of inline citations for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all direct quotations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_overkill
Reverting verifiable good faith edits is bad form and rather impolite on top of that. The very most you would be justified in doing is adding a citation needed tag. Tarchon (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - I am slightly confused. I went to the trouble of writing this article and it is carefully sourced as required by WP:SOURCE. WP:SOURCE seems pretty clear to me: there is no suggestion there that sources are not required. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, point to me the thing in wikipedia polcy that says "sources are required for everything". You linked to a thing which describes how sourcing is done. That's not the same thing. As I said, you have misunderstood the policy. Tarchon (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - The wording is "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK, point to me the thing in wikipedia polcy that says "sources are required for everything". You linked to a thing which describes how sourcing is done. That's not the same thing. As I said, you have misunderstood the policy. Tarchon (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
British Military Installations.
Dear Dormskirk, You clearly have a deep knowledge of British Military History and Devotion to it. Wikipedia, and therefore by extension all those such as myself who care deeply about knowledge, owe you a debt of gratitude for contributing to Wikipedia. I am a sincere admirer of your excellent work and have been for some time.
Yesterday I spend the majority of my Sunday doing extensive and careful work to correct what I perceived to be the deficiencies in the British Army Installations article. The problems in the page were significant, lacking any sort of context. Having given the project about eight hours of my time myself, I can readily understand why you wished to improve my doubtless very imperfect work and article.
I have however a number of defences to my edits I would like to make;
1) I have sources, for example I spent some time understanding the treaty of establishment of the Republic of Cyprus. I deeply regret not citing them already. It was a major failing In me not to do so. I received your kind and appropriate message this afternoon and merely required more time to add the citations because I was at work and with my children. I understand why you felt the need to remove it fast but wonder whether I might ask your permission for me to put it up again with citations.
2) I agree you are right to remove much the RAF and Navy material. Apologies. 2A) However in some cases such as RAF Mt Pleasant or RAF Akrioti, these are also army facilities (RAF Mt Pleasant for example having close to 1000 British Soldiers deployed there). I therefore feel it is valid to classify these two RAF bases at least as Army facilities as well as Airforce facilities; facilities can serve both the RAF And the Army. 2B) I feel an additional area of complexity surrounds RAF Radar facilities, which are often manned by the Royal Engineers from the Army. I therefore wonder whether it might be analytically rigorous to i) include these facilities or ii) create a separate area for British Military installations overall. Obviously I'm delighted to defer to your opinion in this area but wonder whether there are complexities to be addressed which the current framework fails to recognise. I fear this may risk deceiving readers.
3) As concerns the area of the article concerning Cyprus. A) You were concerned that I named some bases which were not currently occupied observing that there were many unused British bases around the world; I can see why you considered this liminal I was concerned as well. My train of though was as follows, these bases are still held by the British Army which has access rights and will likely reoccupy them in the future. For me this differentiates them from abandoned British bases around the world; they are still held by the army which as full rights to use them. In this sense I considered them more analogous to an unoccupied training area. B) My failure of citation in the section concerning British Rights to bases in Cyprus has resulted in confusion; as a result you were unable to accurately summarise it. This my fault. If you will grant permission I will correct it forthwith including referencing more fully especially referencing the foundation treaty. I personally find the legal basis on which base rights rest both deeply interesting and enlightening.
4) I understand why you felt the need to delete my explanation of British training facilities in Kenya. I have citations and with your consent will re-insert them.
As you may have summoned I'm new to Wikipedia; please forgive the flaws which doubtless pervade this message and the article.
Thank you for considering my thoughts. A sincere admirer who wishes to benefit from your extensive experience.
- Hi - Many thanks for taking the trouble to write this. You clearly know what you are talking about when it comes to Cyprus and I would welcome further input from yourself. Just a few thoughts (i) if RAF Mt Pleasant and RAF Akrioti have close to 1000 British Soldiers deployed there then I agree it is valid to classify these two RAF bases as Army facilities as well as Air force facilities. Please feel free to re-insert the additions with appropriate citations. (ii) Likewise RAF Radar facilities, which are manned by the Royal Engineers from the Army. Again please feel free to re-insert the additions with appropriate citations. (iii) Also please feel free to reference the foundation treaty for Cyprus. (iv) I am a bit more doubtful about your history of British Training in Kenya. I just don't think such a long description is relevant in this list - a separate article perhaps? I hope this helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. On reflection you're entirely right about Kenya, an irrelevant area in which I happened to become interested/became bogged down. Thanks for your help/time.
File:Elgato logo.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elgato logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Claude Dauphin
Hi Dormskirk, I've put a few new sections in my sandbox with a view to expanding Claude Dauphin. To try and make it clearer I've included everything that's currently there which I think might remain as it is and suggested new sections in blue font. Some of those are additional content and some of them are intended to expand on what's currently there – I've given a full explanation on the talk page. If you've got time to have a look at some point that'd be much appreciated. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - It looks pretty good to me. I would be quite happy to move it to main space. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, that's great, thanks – should be good to go bar losing the colour templates. HOgilvy (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Great, thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, that's great, thanks – should be good to go bar losing the colour templates. HOgilvy (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work this year!!
Very much appreciate all you've done. Also note as the Kenyan data is valuable, I've created British Army Training Unit Kenya. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi - Many thanks for that. Yes I did suggest to HannahD "a separate article perhaps" for Kenya. Great that you have set it up for her. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Gloucesters...
Just to say nice work on the Gloucesters today! It's looking much better. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Many thanks for that. It did seem to be missing a bit on the First World War. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Army Foundation College Harrogate
Sir,
Regarding the Wiki page on the topic of the Army Foundation College Harrogate, I am looking to update the page to reflect the current situation at the college. Describing the training, education and sport which the the Junior Soldiers undertake.
I have edited the page to reflect this, however you have reverted my edits back to your previous edition. Can I please ask for a reason for this and guidance on editing the page in the future. As I would like to work together to make the wiki page up to date and factually correct.
Regards
- Hi - Sure. Thanks for raising this with me. The key point is that any additions to the article should be independently sourced as required by WP:SOURCE. A good example is Inglis Barracks: you will see that each paragraph has a citations at the end of it. Please note that the citations need to be independent so using the Ministry of Defence website or college website as the source would be inappropriate. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Lord Mountbatten
Dear Dormskirk,
I know that a peerage is not an "office" as such; for this reason, the title Earl Mountbatten of Burma was indicated as title, not as office held by Lord Mountbatten. Moreover, even though he was an officeholder, he was also a peer (and in peers' infobox there's the section title). It would be more appropriate to add the section to Earl Mountbatten's infobox.
Kind regards,
Alistair Wettin (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I understand your point. My concern is that the infobox for Mountbatten is already very cluttered and I have not seen the title (with tenure and successor) included in the infobox in this way before. For example the infobox for Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell does not include such details. Are there any other longstanding examples of what you propose? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Chicksands
Dormskirk (hi)
Are you aware that Chicksands has been JITG Chicksands since 01-01-2015? JITG = Joint Intelligence Training Group. (The British Army - Intelligence Corps Opportunities) I realize that this is not a source for citation, merely a pointer.
Regards, The joy of all things (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - Thanks for that. The MoD are always inventing new acronyms! I suggest we continue to call it the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre for now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Dormskirk. I am about to create some articles that will directly link back to Chicksands. The wikilinks/Re-directs will go back to the DISC page, but it is still called Joint Intelligence Training Group. I will leave them titled as that in the artciles I am creating, but link back to DISC. However, I assume it will need changing at some point. Is this a pain? I am quite happy to rectify the changes to the Chicksands page, however, they won't take effect until I have finished which is probably about two weeks away. Best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - Sure. Thanks for asking. Dormskirk (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Times archive
BTW Please let me know if you ever need me to look up something for you in the the Times archive. It's a great source of info and they usually have very good obituaries on everyone of note. I try to use it at every possible chance to get my money's worth, so please just ask! —МандичкаYO 😜 17:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - That's great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Shawbrook Bank
Hello. I work for a PR agency called Lansons, working on behalf of one of our clients Shawbrook Bank. We’ve seen you have an interest in FTSE 250 companies and have previously made edits to Shawbrook_Bank. We’re looking to have information about the CEO and Chairman updated, as both these positions have changed. The CEO is now Steve Pateman and the Chairman is Iain Cornish (sourced widely online). Per the Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms we want to make sure we engage with the Wikipedia community to have these changes made as we have a conflict of interest. Are these updates you could make for us please? The Shawbrook Bank talk page needs setting up. Thanks. MichaelPWhite (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thank you. We will soon have further proposed additions around expanding article information, including updating financial results. Is this something we should propose via the Shawbrook talk page and then run past you? Of course, will make sure to follow guidelines. MichaelPWhite (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, feel free to propose on the Shawbrook talk page. The financial results will get updated anyway (as it is a FTSE 250 company) but it might take a month or two. Best wishes.Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your initial help. We've prepared some suggested content and are posting this on the talk page of Shawbrook Bank. MichaelPWhite (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I have responded on the article talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your initial help. We've prepared some suggested content and are posting this on the talk page of Shawbrook Bank. MichaelPWhite (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, feel free to propose on the Shawbrook talk page. The financial results will get updated anyway (as it is a FTSE 250 company) but it might take a month or two. Best wishes.Dormskirk (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Thank you. We will soon have further proposed additions around expanding article information, including updating financial results. Is this something we should propose via the Shawbrook talk page and then run past you? Of course, will make sure to follow guidelines. MichaelPWhite (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank so much Dormskirk for your kind words and all good work and good on the Gordon article. Much appreciated! I'm just about done, through I might just add a few citations to some I wrote about Egyptian and Sudanese history, plus a few more details. It is astonishing that the Khedive Ismail spent 2 million Egytpian pounds (the equivalent of $300 million US dollars in today's money) on the party to celebrate the opening of the Suez canal in 1869. It must have been quite a party (and apparently it was), but still for such a poor country as Egypt that does seem rather irresponsible, especially if one remembers that was all money borrowed from British, French and Italian banks. No wonder Egypt went bankrupt. Getting back to the main topic, thank so much for your efforts to improve the citations (I'm not very good at those those things) and please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Same to you. Great to work with you on the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Jeremy de Halpert
Hi Dormskirk
Thank you for helping to improve the article about Sir Jeremy de Halpert. Is it possible to correct the title of this article to: Jeremy de Halpert (ie. small "d" for "de")? This is the correct spelling.
I saw you removed some "unsourced material", however it is not really unsourced since a cross-check between the articles about the Shipwrights' Company, the Lord Mayor of London and Lord Mountevans would verify my edit. Anyway, the significant point is that when Sir Jeremy de Halpert is installed as Prime Warden of the Shipwrights' Company in April it will be the first time since WWII that a PW Shipwright will be serving alongside/under (howsoever you wish to phrase it) a fellow member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights as Lord Mayor. If this is unimportant from a Wikipedia point of view, no worries, but should it be of relevance perhaps you could advise further.
Many thanks for your help so far.
Best L'honorable 03:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Velella: thank you for correcting the title spelling of Sir Jeremy de Halpert so promptly. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I see the spelling correction has kindly been made by Velella. I understand your point about a cross-check between the articles but WP:BLP is clear that, in the case of living people at least, all statements must be cited. I have added a citation myself having identified who the Lord Mayor was that was previously a shipwright. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Dormskirk: thanks yours & I comprehend that "corroborate" would have been better than "verify", qv. List of Lord Mayors of London but this could also be supported by evidence from the Corporation of London's website: Lord Mayor bio. Let me know what more I can do to help. Many thanks. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Supergrouplogo.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Supergrouplogo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Your long-running updates on company financial information are much appreciated. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
- Hi - Very many thanks for this. Dormskirk (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Christopher Wallace edits
Hello Dormskirk
I have noted that you have been very intense in your recent edit on Christopher Wallace.
When I was reworking the contents of his page I used as a guide and template the pages on his friends and colleagues Edwin Bramall, Nick Parker (both former 'riflemen') and Evelyn Webb-Carter. I note from their 'Edit History' pages that you have kept an eye on these as well!
I introduced separate paragraphs with details on 'Early Life' and 'Family' but you have removed these in this instance.
I accept that ideally the Mentioned in Despatches should have the Gazette citation (not included on Nick's) and I now know where to look for Cristopher's.(http://www.royalgreenjackets.co.uk/rgjra_live/frontend/boards.asp?mode=view&postid=837&type=In%20Memoriam) Personally I think that Service/Campaign Medals should also be accepted; it appears that on a couple of the above pages they have been (certainly on Nick's).
I have the text of the Times obituary so would like use a couple of interesting points quoted therein. However a citation link only shows the start of the text plus the image and there is no open access as it is blocked by the subscription requirement. How would you suggest I solve this with a citation ?
Other observations :
Edwin Bramall, edit of 5 February
You changed King's Royal Rifle Corps to Royal Green Jackets
His appointment to command of the battalion was in January 1965 when they were still KRRC since the regiment did not become RGJ until January 1966.
On your 'Read page' you have link to Chief of the General Staff.
I think it highly unlikely that this image is correct as it bears absolutely no resemblance to Nick Parker.
Richard Tennant (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - thanks for this. Yes, I do keep an eye on a few pages! Regarding Christopher Wallace I certainly agree that it needs sections on "early life" and on "family". I only removed these sections as they did not seem to be fully sourced. I have now reinserted the sections using the Telegraph obituary as a source. I have now included the Mention in Despatches with a London Gazette citation. I think it would be entirely appropriate to expand the article with the points mentioned in the Times: please feel free to reinsert ensuring you cite the Times as your source. Regarding your other observations I have made the correction to the Bramall article and I have updated the image for Nick Carter in the Chief of the General Staff article (Parker was never CGS). Hope you are OK with all this. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Army Foundation College (Harrogate).
Sir,
Thank you for your guidance on the article I have previously edited on the Army Foundation College (Harrogate). I fully understand your current position and the reasoning behind adhering to the policy set out by Wikipedia. I am sure the impact and wide reaching influence of Wikipedia is apparent to you.
Therefore, the Army Foundation College wishes to invite you to the college to see the training and activities conducted here. I believe this will be an excellent opportunity for you to gain a better understanding of the training and education the Junior Soldiers at the Army Foundation College (Harrogate). This information can then be of benefit to the Wikipedia community.
I look forward to hearing your response to this invitation.
The details of such visit can be organised at your convenience.
2Lt Haigh – Army Foundation College (Harrogate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrogateafc (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this kind invitation. I currently have no plans to be in Harrogate but will certainly bear in mind when next in Yorkshire. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Christopher Wallace edits
Thank you for 'burning the (almost) midnight oil' to tidy up my edit.
I note that you have relocated the lower paragraphs.
You know, I have never really considered the fact of dying as a stage in my 'Subsequent career'! Now that I am approaching 72, I will need to think more about it and perhaps work on my CV.
I can accept that charity work, with such as museum trusts or member of a board of directors, could be considered as a 'Subsequent career'.
However, in my opinion, a lifetime involvement with hobbies (such as military history), sports activities and an interest in music, should more correctly be defined as 'Personal life'.
If this approach is not in accordance with Wikipedia protocol, then perhaps the logical sequence should be :
Subsequent career and interests
Family
with details of the person's passing as the final line/s to the page.
PS.
In my original text I purposely used the wording 'he was retired ...'.
In the Times obituary it states 'At the end of his time in joint operations in 1996 when he was still in his mid-fifties, Wallace might have expected to advance to four-star general and, in due course, become head of the army. Instead, he was retired.'
There was a sub-title heading 'He might have expected to become head of the army, but was thwarted'
Nick Parker
A minor point - on his page it describes him as being 'Commander Land Forces' whilst on his correspondence at the time it was 'Commander in Chief Land Forces'.
Richard Tennant (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I don't think there is a right answer on section headings so I have followed your suggestion i.e. Subsequent career and interests and then Family and death. This does give a chronological flow. I am not convinced the Times is right that just because he was in his mid-fifties he might have become head of the army: there were other excellent candidates around e.g. Rupert Smith. It seems to me that we need to keep to the facts in an encyclopaedia. On Nick Parker I think the article is already reasonably clear that "Under a major army command reorganisation effective 1 November 2011 Parker's role was re-designated Commander Land Forces". I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Christopher Wallace edits
Hello Dormskirk
Many thanks for all your support on these edits. I believe that we have now projected a good picture of the 'character of the man' as a human being, as well as the 'officer with roles & titles'.
I fully agree with you about handling the comment in the Times - I only thought that you might be interested in it as a postscript.
My main period of interest in military history is 1790 - 1815, however, as a member of the British Commission for Military History, I have contacts with a very broad spectrum of knowledge, both in the UK and internationally, should you need verification on anything in the future.
Richard Tennant (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - That's really kind. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk. Grateful if you could advise which part of the regimental amalgamations section requires a specific source reference. In essence (a) the 5th and 16th Lancers became the 16th/5th; (b) the 17th and 21st became the 17th/21st; (c) the 16th/5th and the 17th/21st became the Queen's Royal Lancers; (d) the 9th and the 12th became the 9th/12th; (e) the Queen's Royal Lancers and the 9th/12th became the Royal Lancers. A convoluted story but does a brief and non-contentious passage warrant five separate source references? On the other hand the fact that the modern Royal Lancers is the only remaining lancer regiment in the British Army is of historical interest and probably worth recording. Regards Buistr (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - It is all of the above i.e. the five steps you describe so clearly together with five citations. I just go on the basis that under WP:CITE everything needs a citation. I hope this helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Clarendon Park, Wiltshire
Thanks for checking my updates.
My para on Clarendon Palace is merely a precis of the "main" article, so I didn't think it was necessary to copy refs from there. Similarly, the Clarendon Way article describes its route. Wire723 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I have added the citations myself. The article was previously fully cited and citations are necessary if the article is ultimately to be assessed for quality. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Ref George Norton
|
Ref George Norton |
| Dormskirk - thank you for correcting my incorrectly formatted entries on the Sir George Norton page. However, I have a full page of information on him (with references) but I clearly do not know how to upload...
Can I send your way for inputting (if you are happy with the content and supporting references?). Wolf.pack.north (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
- Hi - I have added quite a bit to the article myself having regard to the exacting requirements of WP:CITE and WP:BLP. Feel free to let me know if I have missed any important appointments, giving me an authoritative source for those appointments. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
HMS Defender
Hello, could you take a look at the HMS Defender article? User GaryDee seems to assert the ship is searching for the remains of the Air Egypt plane while no official and reputable sources say it is so. He instead post a talk show host link as evidence. Do you think that is a source that passes under Wikpedia guidelines? Thanks.Cantab1985 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - While I agree there may be better sources that Pat Dollard, the story that HMS Defender is in the area certainly seems to be true. See The Professional Pilots Rumour Network. Clearly a Rumour Network is not an acceptable source but I cannot find a better one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a general encyclopedia do we need to monitor where HMS Defender is all the time? Britmax (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Only if its location is notable, in my view. Dormskirk (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will disagree with this but not remove that line. Not even the Daily Mail mentions HMS Defender, Tabloid news or not.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600761/Body-parts-seats-luggage-MS804-search-crews-Horror-relatives-discovery-EgyptAir-jet-parts-dashes-hopes-loved-ones-survived.htmlCantab1985 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed it for now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will disagree with this but not remove that line. Not even the Daily Mail mentions HMS Defender, Tabloid news or not.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600761/Body-parts-seats-luggage-MS804-search-crews-Horror-relatives-discovery-EgyptAir-jet-parts-dashes-hopes-loved-ones-survived.htmlCantab1985 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Only if its location is notable, in my view. Dormskirk (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a general encyclopedia do we need to monitor where HMS Defender is all the time? Britmax (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Districts/Commands in the early 20th c.
From looking through Hart's Army List for the 1900s (at archive.org), the reorganization of the British Army home commands seems to have been as follows:
- At the turn of the century there were seventeen military districts: 1. Aldershot; 2. Eastern (Colchester); 3. Home (Horse Guards); 4. North Eastern (York); 5. North Western (Chester); 6. Scotland (Edinburgh); 7. South Eastern (Dover); 8. Southern (Portsmouth); 9. Thames (Chatham); 10. Western (Devonport); 11. Woolwich; 12. Belfast; 13. Cork; 14. Curragh; 15. Dublin; 16. Guernsey and Alderney; 17. Jersey. Nos. 12-15 were under the commander of the forces in Ireland.
- In 1901 Army Corps were formed: the troops at Aldershot became 1st Army Corps; South Eastern, Southern and Western Districts came under 2nd Army Corps at Salisbury; the forces in Ireland became 3rd Army Corps. In 1903 Home, Eastern, Thames and Woolwich districts came under 4th Army Corps at London.
- In 1905 the Army Corps were renamed Commands: 1st Army Corps became Aldershot Command; 2nd Army Corps became Southern Command; 3rd Army Corps became Irish Command; 4th Army Corps became Eastern Command. Of the remaining mainland district commands, North Eastern District at York became Northern Command; Scotland District became Scottish Command; North Western District at Chester became Welsh and Midland Command (later Western Command). London District was made independent of Eastern Command.
I think this means that Western District (British Army) and Western Command (United Kingdom) need to be separate articles, as there was no continuity between them. Just thought I'd run it by you before charging ahead with the split. Opera hat (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - Yes. No problem. I am aware they cover different geographic areas. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Richard Stanley Hawks Moody
Dormskirk. Richard Stanley Hawks Moody was indeed a Colonel of the Buffs, the Royal East Kent regiment. The precise dates of his position as Colonel have yet to be determined precisely, but the link shall be replaced. If you wish to determine the veracity of the claim, you are welcome to contact the Order of the Bath or the modern regiment to do so. You will find on the internet photographs of the book he authored, which feature his title, Colonel. Please do not delete the link again. (Webbjones (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)).
- Hi - If Moody was indeed colonel of the regiment then this is a valuable addition to wikipedia. You might like to note that (i) you can be a colonel in the regiment without being "the colonel" which is a ceremonial position (ii) Kent Fallen does not recognise him as having been "the colonel" of the regiment (iii) all the rest of the appointments to "the colonel" since 1764 were were of at least major-general rank so to appoint a mere colonel to the position of "the colonel" is unlikely. You do need to read WP:BURDEN which says the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material so it not up to me to contact to contact anyone. Rather it is now up to you to add the in line citation. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Richard Nugee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nugee
Can you adjust accordingly? Don't know who succeeded him as ACDS Personnel/DSS, but he's Chief of Defence People around 8 June 2016
thks
Cantab1985 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I have now formatted the succession box. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Richard Stanley Hawks Moody
Dear Dormskirk, I have the records from his family, from which it appears that RS Hawks Moody was Colonel of the Buffs and the Pioneer Corps, although this is unclear from the presentation. His last regiment is recorded as the Buffs, although this may be an error. Do you have any information to the contrary? I note that in his History of the Buffs, which is visible online, he is noted as Colonel of the Buffs. I am searching for digital records to clarify, so please do not delete this part of the information until we are certain. Thank you for cleaning up the Gazette references. (Hamlet94 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)).
- Hi - Yes, I have been looking through the London Gazettes and other records. He seems to have left the Buffs as a junior officer and transferred to the Royal Irish Fusiliers. The most senior rank he obtained was brevet colonel (he was never a full colonel) and his most senior post was command of the 7th Battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers. He served in Ireland and retired in 1915 before the battalion landed in France. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You will find in the London Gazettes that he was brevet-colonel of Royal Pioneer Corps from 1917 to 1919, so he did not retire until 1919. From my records it seems likely that after this, he was given the honorary title of Colonel of the Buffs, although he had retired. It would also be incongruous with British Army practice to have appointed him CB if he had not reached the rank of full Colonel.
Also please do not delete the information that he was a Military Knight of Windsor. I shall upload a photograph of him in the uniform with the other knights to clarify. The information is also on the internet somewhere. (Hamlet94 (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)).
- Hi - I don't doubt that he was a military knight of Windsor - it is just it is not a post-nominal. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - The article is looking much better now: I am still not sure about your suggestion that he commanded the Buffs: he was already with the Royal Irish Fusiliers in 1904. Best wishes.Dormskirk (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping to clear up the article. It seems that he was appointed to the honorary rank of Colonel of the Buffs upon his retirement. I have removed the Military Knight postnominal, though I have left it in the infobox as an honorary suffix, for, although it would not, unlike an ordinary postnominal, be used on ordinary letters etc., it would be used within the military on official communications. Best wishes(Hamlet94 (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)).
- Sounds good. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
History of the Royal Marines article
I noticed that after your edits to the History of the Royal Marines article, the text in the Uniforms section has almost all gone. Do you think that article is not the best place for information about uniforms? I made a suggestion here, number 5, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Royal_Marines#Uniforms_section that a separate article be created for that section. What do you think? We could both contribute to it. --Dreddmoto (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- I mainly removed the material because very little of it was sourced; that said I fully agree that a separate article on uniforms would be better anyway. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I'll start that article and include a link to it in the Uniforms section of the History of the Royal Marines article. You're welcome to contribute to it. --Dreddmoto (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The article was created and is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniforms_of_the_Royal_Marines --Dreddmoto (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you do the new CAS?
http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/chief-of-the-air-staff.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_of_the_Air_Staff_(United_Kingdom)
No sure how to edit the chart? Thanks
Cantab1985 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - Looks as if you managed to do it. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you edit Nick Houghton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Houghton
Dont k now how to edit the before and after stuff Cantab1985 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - It again looks as if you have successfully done it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Emin Pasha
Dear Dormskirk
Thank you for your kind words and appreciation again. It seems I erred slightly as I writing from memory (my bad). I just looked up the matter and I stand corrected. Emin Pasha was not Gordon's successor as governor of Equatoria, but in 1878 Gordon fired the governor of Equatoria for being corrupt and replaced him with Emin Pasha. Maybe this is a bit of OR on my part, but I don't think Gordon would had appointed Emin governor if he thought he was an idiot, not least because Gordon would had known how challenging Equatoria was to govern. The book by Faught does mention Gordon when he was governor of Equatoria did have a high regard for Emin who was his chief medical officer, so I presume that is why Gordon gave him the job in 1878. I am going to correct my mistake. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great. You certainly know your 19th century history! Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your welcome! Thank you again for your kind words. Sorry for being late in getting back to you, as work as usual has intervened with baleful effect into my life, so I rather behind in everything. I should be able to get to the library to put a citation on the line. As mentioned in the article on Montgomery, there is a rather sharp historiographical dispute between American and British historians about Montgomery's conduct of the Normandy campaign, which makes writing an article about him somewhat difficult since American and British historians have such sharply contrasting pictures of Montgomery's conduct of the Normandy campaign. Montgomery certainly had a knack for rubbing the Americans the wrong way, and as a result American historians tend to be very hostile towards him. If you read anything by Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Ambrose, one gets the distinct impression that the Americans did all the heavy lifting in Normandy and that they won in despite of Montgomery rather than because of him. Whereas British historians usually defend Montgomery's record, and if one reads the work by John Keegan and David Belchem, one gets the impression that Montgomery's "master plan" all worked out. I am a hopeless Anglophile, but at same time, I'll must admit that Montgomery does come across as an unlikeable figure-regardless of my personal feelings, one must always be guided by what is the truth. Having said all that much, my reading of the literature on Normandy is that Montgomery's claim that he had a "master plan" worked out before the campaign which he followed to the letter during the Normandy campaign is a lie. For example, his pre-D Day plan said he would take Caen no later than two days after D-Day, but Caen was only captured at the end of July. Having noted that much, the claim that this proves that Montgomery was incompetent is unwarranted. Montgomery had a plan, discovered it was not working and adjusted to a new plan that did work. To tell you the truth, I don't see how this detracts from Montgomery's leadership, if anything it proves he was able enough to suffer from adversity and to overcome it. Montgomery had a weak, ineffectual father and a dominating, cruel mother for whom everything he did was never good enough for her. This upbringing seems to have damaged Montgomery because he always had this obsession that he had to be #1 at everything and he would never, never admit to making a mistake. Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau may not strike one as a obvious point of comparison with Montgomery, but there is a important similarity. In the Pink Panther films, Clouseau is always tripping over things and falling down, and rather than admit to being clumsy, he always claims to have fallen down on purpose. Montgomery had the same habit, which led him to this absurd claim of having a "master plan", which is unfortunate since it does distracts from his achievements in Normandy. In this respect, Monty was his own worse enemy. I personally try to keep my opinions out of an article as much as possible (through not everyone agrees with me), but at times one must exercise some discretion when it comes to the books on the subject, especially one gets such contrasting portraits of Monty. Enough of my rambling-I should be able to a citation on that by the weekend. Thank you again for your kindness and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your welcome. Sorry, it took me a little longer about it than I expected. D'Este in Decision in Normandy, which seems to me to be one of the better books on the subject said that only in the broadest sense can Montgomery's St. Paul's plan worked out in practice in the sense that he envisioned the Americans come up from the south and the British from the north to envelop the Germans, and points that what actually happened is very different from the St. Paul's plans showed. For an example, the St. Paul's plans called for a very wide envelopment of the German Army Group B, instead of the very short envelopment that actually happened. That's often the case in war where in the chaos caused by the fog of war frequently leads to plans falling apart. There is very good book Blundering to Glory by Owen Connolly where he takes demolishes Napoleon's claim in his memories that all of his victories were carefully planned out by him in advance, and shows that Napoleon planned was usually different from what happened. I'll think I just about finished about the Normandy campaign, and I am go to move to campaigns in the fall of 1944, and add something about the Battle of the Scheldt, which at present the article ignores. I try to be fair, but about the Scheldt, I am having to be critical of Montgomery because he failed to understand the importance of Antwerp. To invade Germany, the Allies needed a huge port that was close to Germany, and the only place that fit the bill was Antwerp, which the British had captured with its harbour mostly intact in September 1944. The French ports on the Channel and Atlantic coast were too far away and the Allied advance was slowly down because of logistics. Antwerp was and still is the third largest port in Europe. But to open up Antwerp required cleaning the Scheldt of mines, and to clean the mines required evicting the German forces from the mouth of Scheldt. Montgomery with his focus on Arnhem treated the Scheldt as a matter of secondary importance, much to the fury of Admiral Bertram Ramsay, who complained he should be focusing on taking the mouth of the Scheldt. That is my viewpoint, but the overwhelming majority of historians who have written on the subject say the same thing and take Ramsay's side in his dispute with Montgomery, so I don't think that is POV-pushing. Even if the "bridge too far" at Arnhem was not a bridge too far, it would not had mattered because without Antwerp, the logistics to support a British thrust into the north German plain, which is what Montgomery envisioned after Market Garden would not had been there. Thank you for the kind words and please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
- Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your welcome! Thank you again for your kind words. Sorry for being late in getting back to you, as work as usual has intervened with baleful effect into my life, so I rather behind in everything. I should be able to get to the library to put a citation on the line. As mentioned in the article on Montgomery, there is a rather sharp historiographical dispute between American and British historians about Montgomery's conduct of the Normandy campaign, which makes writing an article about him somewhat difficult since American and British historians have such sharply contrasting pictures of Montgomery's conduct of the Normandy campaign. Montgomery certainly had a knack for rubbing the Americans the wrong way, and as a result American historians tend to be very hostile towards him. If you read anything by Victor Davis Hanson and Stephen Ambrose, one gets the distinct impression that the Americans did all the heavy lifting in Normandy and that they won in despite of Montgomery rather than because of him. Whereas British historians usually defend Montgomery's record, and if one reads the work by John Keegan and David Belchem, one gets the impression that Montgomery's "master plan" all worked out. I am a hopeless Anglophile, but at same time, I'll must admit that Montgomery does come across as an unlikeable figure-regardless of my personal feelings, one must always be guided by what is the truth. Having said all that much, my reading of the literature on Normandy is that Montgomery's claim that he had a "master plan" worked out before the campaign which he followed to the letter during the Normandy campaign is a lie. For example, his pre-D Day plan said he would take Caen no later than two days after D-Day, but Caen was only captured at the end of July. Having noted that much, the claim that this proves that Montgomery was incompetent is unwarranted. Montgomery had a plan, discovered it was not working and adjusted to a new plan that did work. To tell you the truth, I don't see how this detracts from Montgomery's leadership, if anything it proves he was able enough to suffer from adversity and to overcome it. Montgomery had a weak, ineffectual father and a dominating, cruel mother for whom everything he did was never good enough for her. This upbringing seems to have damaged Montgomery because he always had this obsession that he had to be #1 at everything and he would never, never admit to making a mistake. Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau may not strike one as a obvious point of comparison with Montgomery, but there is a important similarity. In the Pink Panther films, Clouseau is always tripping over things and falling down, and rather than admit to being clumsy, he always claims to have fallen down on purpose. Montgomery had the same habit, which led him to this absurd claim of having a "master plan", which is unfortunate since it does distracts from his achievements in Normandy. In this respect, Monty was his own worse enemy. I personally try to keep my opinions out of an article as much as possible (through not everyone agrees with me), but at times one must exercise some discretion when it comes to the books on the subject, especially one gets such contrasting portraits of Monty. Enough of my rambling-I should be able to a citation on that by the weekend. Thank you again for your kindness and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
James Chiswell
Is now DSF. CAn you format his infobox; I always mess that up. Thanks.
http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-uk-discuss-military-cooperation-2
Cantab1985 (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Well spotted re the article in the Jordan Times, Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
DSF
You are probably right about that Daily Star article; there couldnt have been a RM DSF since there was no such promotion during that time. At best it could be a deputy. But we dont know exactly when Chiswell took over.Cantab1985 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- My guess would be sometime in spring 2015. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest gazette info
On Andrew Gregory and Ian Corder's pages can you help format.
Thanks for the good work!
Cantab1985 (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Well spotted re the retirements! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
They think I'm a sockpuppet
Please add to my defence. Have I not been a great contributor to many defence articles?Cantab1985 (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I agree that you have done some great work. That said I do think you need to let the investigation take its course. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Help with corporate article COI request
Hi Dormskirk, hope you are well! As you've assisted me in the past on making straightforward updates to the Accenture article, I wanted to see if you could help on a similar request for a different article Ligado Networks. The company was formerly called LightSquared, and up until very recently the article was still named LightSquared. Additionally, parts of the article are written about LightSquared in the present tense. It makes for a confusing read.
I posted an edit request on the Talk page, and an editor has helped update a handful of areas of the article. However, there is still some work that needs to be done and a few typos they've introduced that need fixing. Would you mind reviewing the edit request?
I have marked which areas have already been completed, but I could still use help on the infobox, and the article's FCC authorization and Interference issues sections. These are straightforward edit requests, but I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Quick full disclosure: I do have a financial COI as I'm working for Ligado Networks via The Glover Park Group as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Thanks in advance for considering! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - I think I have picked up all the changes. Please let me know if I have missed anything. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Richards
Just musing. It's odd that those IPs are intent on removing the personal life section. He discusses his marriage and family life extensively in his book and after a long time in the spotlight, he's certainly a public figure. Like I say, odd. Don't know if you've read his book—he's a very interesting, and very intelligent, man who has obviously put a lot of thought into his profession. Anyway, just musing. I'll keep an eye on it but if it becomes a problem and semi-protection would be helpful, give me a shout. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi - Many thanks for that. The IPs are also playing with the personal life section on Nick Houghton. I agree it is odd especially as I am not aware of any changes in the personal life of either of them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Robert Barker
Thanks for sorting this out! Been so long since I did a merge that I felt a bit daunted by attempting it... I've been working through ingesting all pre-1832 MPs into Wikidata, and of the ~5000 with enwiki articles I've done so far, this is the only pair where we'd duplicated them by accident. A pretty good hit rate. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. And well spotted for seeing the duplication! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dormskirk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |