StephenMacmanus

Welcome!

Hello StephenMacmanus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -Rholton 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, you do a great job regarding Soviet fronts and it is appreciated. Please don't forget to announce the articles you start on Portal:Russia/New article announcements. You may also want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union. --Ghirla | talk 16:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Stay off the Battle of the Netherlands article.

The article has fine information and certainly not too much of it.

I would apreaciate it if you discuss before you delete.That's how Wikipedia works.

Sandertje 13:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk and Canadians

Fair Dinkum .... although many people forget that the 1ST Division was in France and in forward motion around the same time as the Evacuation. TrulyTory 03:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, StephenMacmanus! I see that you most charitably interpreted my reinsertion of your edits as a failed attempt to reinstore all of them, but the truth is I made a selection, disagreeing with many :o). I do agree the first part of the article has to be rewritten completely — one of the many things I have put off for too long ;o). Your edits were of course quite reasonable, but only given the fact that most popular literature on the subject (and sadly many "professional" books are little different) is often very deceptive. There are two points in particular you might be surprised about: Operation Sichelschnitt was not the official German code name; in all probability Churchill first used the informal description "Sickle Cut" and this catchy phrase was after the war translated and used by the German generals in their historical writings. The second point is that the Dutch already surrendered on the evening of the 14th; the capitulation was signed on the 15th. Being Dutch I would also like to emphasise that from a strict nautical point of view the body of water Army Group B progressed along was the North Sea, notwithstanding the British habit to call anything they have to cross to reach the Continent "The Channel" ;o). Greetings, --MWAK 15:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"List of snowclones" article

I removed "If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs" from "List of snowclones", since I've never seen or heard any other foodstuffs substituted — although I can certainly believe "fish and chips" for a British variant! (Real snowclones should have at least half a dozen easily findable examples, because there's usually no "right" words, like "ham and eggs" in that quotation.) FYI, though, since I thought you might be wondering: Internet sources seem to agree that it's a Depression-era catchphrase. My initial hunch was that it was a Laurel and Hardy joke, but I found only one Google result lending even tenuous support to that idea. So, that's all I know.

Have a nice day! --Quuxplusone 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anna Anderson"

Thanks for undertaking clean-up of the Anna Anderson article. I've asked for it to be peer-reviewed to get more suggestions to improve it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Foxe

Hello Stephen,
Thanks for your amendments to the Foxe's Book of Martyrs article, to which I had previously contributed. Your edits are a real improvement. Mine were the other way, to remove a rather more rooted pro-Roman bias, and no doubt I laid it on a bit! I see the superior merit of your formulations. Only I wonder if perhaps the word 'distinction' in the sentence about English identity acquiring non-papal and non-Roman traditions, though exact in meaning and perfectly without bias, is quite sufficiently expressive of separation, given the subsequent outcome?
Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thedeadlyparadox on AIV

Is stale, the last edit was 13 September. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the vandalism report was valid, and the account was blocked in response. StephenMacmanus (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

FYI, I removed the list you inserted into the lead of "Commonwealth War Graves Commission". However, I have started a "List of total Commonwealth War Graves Commission burials by country" to present the full datasheet. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about your change, though other editors have since restored the "top ten" list which I created. I noticed the initial contents of the full datasheet in the separate article doesn't match the latest annual report, though now I see it's only a partial list of countries from A-H at this point. I'll make additional comments on your talk page. StephenMacmanus (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Medardo Joseph Mazombwe"

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: "Medardo Joseph Mazombwe". The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a "WP:RS" reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our "Wikipedia:Verifiability" verifiability policy]]. Please add "WP:REF" references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Medardo Joseph Mazombwe"

The article "Medardo Joseph Mazombwe" has been "WP:BLPPROD" proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see "Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners" or ask at "Wikipedia:Help desk". Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletionism

Yea, I agree with you - less knowledge is always much more important than more knowledge... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, what? I never proposed deleting anything. StephenMacmanus (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on when to edit File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg following new legislation/court-rulings

Hello, I have noticed you made edits on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg and/or File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg/Archive 5, so I am contacting you to take part in a newly-formed discussion at File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg as for whether we should update the map directly when a new legislation or court-order hits the books or if we should wait until said action takes effect. Historically, we have been updating the map when the new legislation is signed (or veto overrode or won at the ballot box, etc.), and thus it can be inferred that the consensus is to update as soon as one of those occurs. A discussion has emerged in regards to whether we should begin updating from the effective date instead of from the date of signing/etc. If you have an opinion over this matter please post it at File_talk:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg#When_to_update_map.3F_Effective_date_or_signing.2Fruling_date

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)