User talk:Leithp/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Leithp. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
This archive page is for messages from July 1 2007 to May 5 2008.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
 Issue XVI (June 2007) | ||
|
| |
New featured articles: New A-Class articles: |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Indonesian National Revolution...
Hey - thanks for the attention you paid this article. I hope to see more :-). --Merbabu 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I'm not able to help much. I was reading the article mainly because I'm unfamiliar with the events, particularly with Britain's involvement. Good luck with improving the article though, it can't be far from FA standard now. Leithp 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Stalking
I have come to the end of my tether. The campaign by User:Mallimak and his countless dynamic IP sockpuppets has now descended to pure stalking behaviour. The Wikipedia community cannot allow this behaviour to continue. I am asking you, and other Admins and Users who have had to deal with Mallimak in the past, to review the situation. Please see:
Revert to Anti-Tank dog
Is there a reason you removed my speedy for copyright reasons on Anti-tank dog. The source website, shows clearly that the material is copyright to its contributers, and as far as I can tell, no one has produced any evidence that the page was edited by the original author. -Cronium 15:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The page cited was written on April 11th, 2006. At that stage the Wikipedia page, which is cited as a source by that website, was already extant. Looking over that website, I see correlation on the paragraph beginning "According to Soviet sources", but the solution to that is to remove the offending text, not delete the article. Would you agree with that interpretation? Leithp 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The page reads almost identically to the article, with a few minor grammar changes and a minor amount of rewording something which I believe qualifies as WP:CP. While I agree that the website itself may have sourced part of its information from Wikipedia, it appears the Wikipedia article is now using the website as a source. An instance of circular sourcing? I believe the best action would be a rewrite of the article, or at least, the addition of the website as a reference. -Cronium 13:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Both of those solutions sound sensible. Leithp 15:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Robert Eustace Le Fleming
You are absolutely correct. PLEASE delete the "ROBERT Eustace Le Fleming" article. Thank you very much! Mkpumphrey 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Baden-Powell
You removed a sentence from the lead para of the Baden-powell article with the edit summary "rv "fascist" claims from intro. Certainly not information that needs to be in intro". You misunderstand the purpose of the opening paragraphs on wikipedia. As per the manual of style (WP:MOS), the lead paragraphs are NOT an introduction. They are to summarise briefly all content found in the article. The different is that if something has a section in the article, such as controversies, this must be summarised in the lead paras. Please verify this for yourself by reading the WP:MOS policies. I have reverted your edits to include this sentence. If you want to work the sentence to be shorter (eg "Baden-Poowell has also faced criticisms of homosexuality and fascist leanings") or similar, then that is fine, but it must remain in some form in the lead para. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Show me where it says that. I think it gives undue weight to a few vague claims. Leithp 17:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I will. Wikipedia's guide to layout, part of the manual of style states that the lead paras should "summarize the most important points of the article." - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- My edits - all in line with WP:MOS and of factually cited information and with full edit summaries of why the information belonged where it was - were being reverted, without edit summaries or rationale by users with a self-confessed vested interest in not seeing negative aspects of a scouting-associated figure being prominently shown. I cited all facts as requested, I explained why my edits conformed with wikipedia policies on lead paras, and yet still because this information was unwelcome by all the scouts watching the article, my edits were reverted. I've got better things to do with my time than vest any more effort in enforcing the neutrality of wikipedia articles and the adherence to its policies. You want to remove pertinent content from this article in violation of wikipedia's policies? Fine, go ahead, I can't be bothered to keep fighting this. Yay for censorship and mob rule. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I guess that's where we disagree, I don't think it is one of the most important parts of the article. Don't you think that if you hadn't approached everyone involved so aggressively you would have got a better response? Enjoy your martyrdom, anyway. Meh. Leithp 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Contribution
Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
|
Issue XVIII (August 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists New A-Class articles: | |
|
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Delivered by grafikbot 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
|
Issue XIX (September 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles:
New Featured lists: New Featured topics: | |
| ||
| ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Delivered by grafikbot 13:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
AfD
Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
|
Issue XX (October 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
|
What is Tag & Assess MMVII? We'd better explain. A month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where you can help. Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Delivered by grafikbot 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
|
Issue XXI (November 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured portals: New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
|
Issue XXII (December 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:
Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-particpants alike are very welcome and appreciated. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Franco-Prussian War use of English
I responded to you in the talk page- I wanted to apologize once again; I let what was going on in Talk:Origins of World War I get to me and of course had a knee-jerk reaction. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. I should have used a clearer edit summary. Leithp 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
|
Issue XXIII (January 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Knock Knock.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Knock Knock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Milhist coordinators election has started
- The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to my dislike of pointless bureaucracy, I'll pass, thanks. Leithp 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)I've had a change of heart, thanks for the notification. Leithp 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
|
Issue XXIV (February 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have hastily knocked together a sample treatment of an alternative format for the aforementioned page and posted it to the article's talk page. As you have weighed in on the previous version, I would invite your comments on the alternate I am proposing. Do you think this would make the page more worth keeping? Is it worth the effort to redo the whole page? Is the whole concept a lost cause? Inquiring minds want to know. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like a great improvement. Leithp 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
British Army Indian divisions
I appreciate that you wanted to fix what you thought were incorrectly linked articles, but it seems to me the problem is with article names which do not conform to consistent naming according to naming conventions (units). Going to discuss this in the Talk:British Divisions in World War II.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some of them are named wrongly. Others aren't. The african divisions, for example, are uniquely named units and are correct to the milhist unit name guidelines. Either way, you need to leave the links and rename the articles if required. We can't just redlink because we disagree with an article title. Leithp 09:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is something that needs to be discussed first. In any case, if the naming convention applies, then moving the articles should not be a problem, and links will work after moves. If I'm in the wrong, I will correct the links myself. Ok?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, but please pipelink them in the meantime and leave the blue links. Leithp 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- You mean using [[Talk:British Divisions in World War II]]?!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I mean using the [[Article title here|whatever you want to call it]] trick. Leithp 09:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mrg, British Divisions in World War II is a fairly obscure page. I recommend discussing your suggestions/proposals (?) at MILHIST and/or its subordinate task forces. Hey there, Leithp! I've been awaiting an excuse to drop by here (damn my rigid adherence to WP:NOT ;-). It's good to see you're still editing with some frequency. Will Brian Horrocks undergo further expansion in the : foreseeable future? SoLando (Talk) 19:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Joel, haven't heard from you for a while. I agree with the centralised discussion idea. Horrocks has been waiting for quite a while now, so I'm planning to expand the article and put it through peer review in the next couple of months. I'm sorely tempted to expand Neil Ritchie, though. I found a copy of Michael Carver's Dilemmas of the Desert War in a second-hand bookshop when I was on holiday and he makes a persuasive case that Ritchie was hard done by. How's the King's Regiment doing these days? Leithp 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi SoLando. Aren't the concepts of reference and obscure fairly compatible? In any case, seems to me that there is no need to discuss obscure articles in main project talk. You are welcome to contribute in the article talk though since the issue has far-ranging effects beyond British divisions in the Second World War. Once more progress has been made in understanding what needs to be done, it will be brought to the attention of relevant task forces.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Obscure in this instance wouldn't be conducive to stimulating discussion ;-) At least invite project participation by directing interested MILHIST users to the article's talk page. A concise note on the talk pages of MILHIST and relevant task forces will suffice in maximising coverage, which should be beneficial to future discourse. Leith, how's it been going? Have you been frequenting any gigs recently (I noticed you added an image to the Guillemots)? There are a significant number of music-related articles that would welcome an illustration (or two) and wouldn't be at all perturbed were the band captured on a mobile! And let us never mention Slipknot ;-). Horrocks really deserves the attention and, hey, if its welcomed, I would be an unhesitating contributor to that article's development - after all, it's a Wiki. Hah! So do you believe it has the potential to eventually be nominated as an FAC?
- Ah, my perennial project (cries of WP:OWN? ;-). Well, I've been neglecting the King's Regiment of late. But as a consolation I'm enhancing Wikipedia's peripheral coverage of the regiment by developing Charles Harington Harington....sporadically ;-). That project had languished in a state of dormancy for over a year until a discussion with David Underdown (talk · contribs) reminded me of that page. As happens... I'll try to be a more frequent visitor to your talk page, if you don't have any objections :-). SoLando (Talk) 09:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm not short of source material on Horrocks. Two books written by him and one about him are languishing on my shelves. I also have some of the usual general (ho ho) reference material. All assistance is welcome. Glad to hear you're sticking with the King's Regiment article. Leithp 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then make him am FA! According to Giano's guide, such articles should ideally contain titillation and action. Any prospect of the Dirty Dozen being mentioned? ;-) Gotta note that Charles Harington Harington was such a complex guy. Progressive and yet seems anachronistic, even for the early 20th Century. Yayyyyy. It's so good to see you're still editing. SoLando (Talk) 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Harrington is an interesting article, he's not somebody I've come across before. Though I have edited the article. I think it's a sign you've been here too long when you find yourself amazed to see your username on an article history. Unfortunately the prospect of including heroic tales of derring-do on Horrocks will be limited. I could add details of his series of gruesome wounds, Olympic competition and weeks-long partying? It might add interest for "The Kids". Leithp 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind "The Kids", I wanna read! Alas, Wikipedia's approach to history will probably have to compete with Rome and the Tudors ;-). You may have to provide some exposition on what this partying entailed, just for article comprehensiveness. I've been exposed to a large volume of "revised" accounts of the early 20th Century to have a vivid imagination :-D. Now had Harington been involved with an array of women he'd have qualified as a playboy. He appears to have preferred games to studying, mathematics and languages. Swam the Tigris and the English Channel, extensively played cricket, was apparently "stalked" by a woman he described as, sigh, a Bolshevik (that has to be included in the article, somehow. But how?!). And even reveals that while in Ireland he was so frustrated at the decision to disband the 4th King's that he and his friends used a shotgun to target a large clock that was providing a source of light on that night, in the process also peppering the windows of the pay office below it ;-) SoLando (Talk) 15:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leith, was Horrocks assigned to a platoon on arrival in France? That paragraph could be restructured so that the "...had circumstances not changed abruptly" sentence is clarified. The initial sentence discussing his deployment to France could then begin with something like "Promoted to blah, Horrocks" or "Now a , Horrocks" or even "Joining the Middlesex Regiment, Horrocks". Or something....;-) SoLando (Talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Harrington is an interesting article, he's not somebody I've come across before. Though I have edited the article. I think it's a sign you've been here too long when you find yourself amazed to see your username on an article history. Unfortunately the prospect of including heroic tales of derring-do on Horrocks will be limited. I could add details of his series of gruesome wounds, Olympic competition and weeks-long partying? It might add interest for "The Kids". Leithp 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then make him am FA! According to Giano's guide, such articles should ideally contain titillation and action. Any prospect of the Dirty Dozen being mentioned? ;-) Gotta note that Charles Harington Harington was such a complex guy. Progressive and yet seems anachronistic, even for the early 20th Century. Yayyyyy. It's so good to see you're still editing. SoLando (Talk) 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm not short of source material on Horrocks. Two books written by him and one about him are languishing on my shelves. I also have some of the usual general (ho ho) reference material. All assistance is welcome. Glad to hear you're sticking with the King's Regiment article. Leithp 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi SoLando. Aren't the concepts of reference and obscure fairly compatible? In any case, seems to me that there is no need to discuss obscure articles in main project talk. You are welcome to contribute in the article talk though since the issue has far-ranging effects beyond British divisions in the Second World War. Once more progress has been made in understanding what needs to be done, it will be brought to the attention of relevant task forces.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
<un-indented>Does that help? Leithp 20:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's awesome! SoLando (Talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Policy
Can you direct me to the policy which states that a topic ban includes the talk page as well? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just checked - this is what the policy clearly states : "Topic ban The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so."
It doesn't say anything about the talk page. DemolitionMan (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- In this case "any page relating to a particular topic" refers to the talk pages as well, because that was one of your areas of disruption. Leithp 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Editing refers to incorporating changes. I am merely going to add stuff. However, since you were the plaintiff, prosecutor, judge and jury - I guess I shall have to abide by this ridiculous gag order. DemolitionMan (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the editing history of this user on the British Raj page ? Seems to be a sock, but having watchlisted the article only recently, I cannot tell if it is User:DemolitionMan or someone else. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've filed a RFCU request. We'll just have to wait and see if it's accepted and if it's positive. Leithp 12:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The check was negative. Leithp 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Upper Case Ranks
Hi, out of interest what's your source for lower casing ranks? As far as I'm aware for hundreds of years The Times, newspaper of record after all has capitalised all ranks regardless of it being separate or used as a title, be it Army, RN or RAF. Regards, Harlsbottom (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The MOS guidelines. Books I've read tend to be inconsistent on this, but mostly agree with the MOS. There was a related discussion on WP:MILHIST last year. Leithp 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind then. If it's down on MOS it's cast in stone. Cheers for the links. Harlsbottom (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the MOS is cast in stone, if you wanted to lobby for change. I think I'll sit that one out though. My head is still spinning from that discussion in November. Leithp 14:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your headache is why I wouldn't bother! Time spent arguing could be spent on decent articles. It's hard enough getting people to agree on facts sometimes let alone the way the fact is presented. Out of interest, in your books on Horrocks is much information given on his father? After I finish up with Ralph Paget I might start one on William Horrocks, his work on Malta Fever is quite interesting. I'm surprised that not one mention is made of him on the Brucellosis page. Harlsbottom (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's a little bit in Warner: He was from Little Bolton in Lancashire, graduated London University in medicine, joined RAMC 1887. Knighted 1918 and given honorary rank of major-general. Assisted in discovery that goat's milk was a carrier of brucellosis. Researched contamination of water and developed the "Horrocks box", a portable water filtration and decontamination kit for the army. "The remarkable freedom from water-borne disease of the Allied forces was principally due to the Horrocks box." Researched removal of poisons from water supplies and helped develop the first gas mask. Married Minna Moore of Co. Antrim in 1894, two children, Brian and Jean.
- Horrocks says:Met wife in India after being sent out by RAMC. Spent four years in Gibraltar studying causes of Malta fever, after this he concentrated on research.
- Hope that helps, the guy looks like he deserves an article. Leithp 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
|
Issue XXV (March 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured topics: New A-Class articles: |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
RFC List of New Zealand Military people
Hi, I have posted a request for clarification from you (as nominator) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Zealand military people. Your response there (in light of other discussion on that AFD) would be appreciated. dramatic (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have replied. Leithp 06:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up that DemolitionMan (talk · contribs) seems to be starting up his old tricks again - this time at Kashmir. If he continues in this vein perhaps we may want to change the topic ban back to Desi-related articles. Ronnotel (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Leithp 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for letting me know about the 3RR complaint, and for pointing out that two of my edits were, in fact, one reversion.
You may be interested to know that I've asked a question on the BLP board concerning the Montgomery/Trueb information, which is still part of the article Historical pederastic couples. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
EOKA
Hi, I am proposing to split the article on EOKA into two separate articles. I noticed you have contributed to the article so if you are still interested, please have a look at the talk page and add any of your thoughts. Georgeg (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: British Raj
Since I didn't exceed three reverts, I am not in danger, but thanks for preemptively stepping in and warning me about it. May I suggest that you recuse yourself from British Raj discussions and let a more uninvolved and neutral administrator deal with any issues. Thanks. Desione (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad to note that you are aware of the 3RR. As far as your other point goes, I shall continue to monitor articles for edit warring. You are, of course, free to ask another administrator to review my actions. Leithp 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
New User
Hi there, Is there some way to check that the new user Txbangert (talk · contribs) on British Raj is not user:DemolitionMan? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can request a checkuser. I don't believe it is, though. The contributions and editing style do not correspond, in my opinion. Leithp 06:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
|
Issue XXVI (April 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured portals: New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Brian Horrocks Review
Hola Leithp. I've just finished reviewing Brian Horrocks per the GA-Nomination, and I've placed it On Hold. There are a few minor issues that need addressing (primarily with the lack of in-line citations in the Europe & North Africa sections). I've done a bit of copyediting on the punctuation & flow of the article in several sections. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was aware of the citation issue and will be addressing it in the near future. I'll leave a message when I'm done. Leithp 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I will probably not edit Rebellion of 1857 again - so I don't care if you wanna extend the ban. Since you are usually the plaintiff, judge and jury - I wouldn't expect anything else. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)