User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 9

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Cambridge University Study

Hello Domskirk,

as part of a field experiment for a Cambridge University study, we undertook several edits on various Wikipedia pages over the past months.

You were one of the users reacting to an edit we made, precisely: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_Tinto_(corporation)&diff=986690468&oldid=986690437

It would be extremely helpful for our study if you could explain a little bit further why you decided to challenge this edit. Feel free to comment on this talk page or write us an email at WikipediaStudy@web.de.

We are also more than happy to have a short interview of around 15 minutes, in which we would further talk about your general experiences and motivations as a Wikipedia editor. The interviews have received approval from the Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge and it will be ensured that you can stay completely anonymous.

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon and are glad to provide more information about the study if you send us an email!

Best wishes,

Vincent 2.247.245.243 (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the edit is very simple: the tense was incorrect: the events concerned occurred between 1988 and 2015 and therefore the verb should have used the past tense. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

But how does responsibility 'expire' just because it happened in the past? If person x robbed person y a year ago, does that mean that today person x is definitely no longer responsible for the robbery? And if person x is not responsible, who is responsible then? Same with oil and gas companies: if they are not responsible for their emissions, who is responsible then? The Guardian article that I cited prevents using a tense saying "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says". Using past tense implies that the company is no longer responsible for their emissions, which is also quite a strong interpretation. As I mentioned before, it would be great to talk about these questions in an interview, and hearing about your general experience as a Wikipedia editor would be just as valuable. Please do get in touch! ~ Vincent 92.40.178.90 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said anything about responsibility. I just corrected the grammar. In your example person x was responsible for the robbery. I do not wish to take part in any survey. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

St Mungo's College Medical School

Hi, I am aware that Wikipedia content should be cited and am happy for you to remove uncited content. I intend to add citations, but I also failed to link the page I was copying from, so I will probably reverse everything and start again shortly. TSventon (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

JET Record

The Joint European Torus was not set up for power capture. Hence, 16 MW of power out of 23 MW of power in the plasma is a Q of 0.67. But with 100 MW in the fly wheels, the efficiency was closer to 16%. IF they had had electrical capture they efficiency would have closer to 4%. I have these numbers from Mark Henderson, Electron Cyclotron Section Leader at ITER. I am publishing a book on Fusion with Nature-Springer. Once my book is published, I will come back and cite my book with that information. This is obviously a very important fact, because it is the current record for power made by any fusion device, anywhere in the world.

Thanks, Dr. Matt Moynihan www.fusionconsultant.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.6.43.48 (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Fine. I look forward to seeing the new information properly cited. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

C.D. Luis Ángel Firpo

Hello, could you give a wikification to the article, it is very badly edited.--OaxacaGenius (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I voluntarily decided to withdraw from working on edit requests some 6 months ago after being criticised by an admin for adding a few sentences, which I regarded as well presented and factual, to an article on behalf of a conflicted editor. I suggest you log your request using an {{request edit}} on the article talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Harlington, Harmondsworth and Cranford Cottage Hospital

Dear Dormskirk, re the above, the info came from a printed source which was cited and had been on the page for years and even been passed by you in an earlier browse in 2018. The editor known only by an IP address seems to have deleted the relevant references in his punitive edit last week which may have then made the remaining info seem unsound. Therefore, I hope to restore some of the lost info in due course. Best wishes, Rodolph (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Please use published secondary sources which comply with WP:RS. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Circassia page name change.

Hi Dormskirk, thank you so much for assisting with the edits for this page. I am struggling to change the name of the page from Circassia Pharmaceuticals to Circassia Group PLC, we changed name back in May 2020 (https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CIR/change-of-name-effective/14525395) would you be able to help me with this?

--SamuelIsaacs (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks again, Samuel Isaacs, Head of Digital, Circassia Group PLC.

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Henry Newcome (British Army officer)

Thank you for correcting the birth month in the infobox of Henry Newcome (British Army officer) Truthanado (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation on Sutton Town Hall

Hello, Thank your support regarding recent edits to the page for Sutton Coldfield Town Hall. I have added citation to one element of my edit, though have been unable to find an online citation for the following element: 'The two expected restaurants, due to be built on The Town Hall, were not built due to the sale being blocked by local residents.'

The best I can think of for a citation is the fact that there most definitely are not two restaurants on the site - without making the above edit, the page creates the illusion that there are two restaurants on the site which is of course false.

How would you suggest making this edit?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.227.109 (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi - The citation you have already added looks good - thanks for that. As regards the bit about the the two restaurants being blocked by local residents, that looks quite controversial. I think you would need to cite the rejection by the planning authority or cite some mention in the media that it was blocked by the planning authority. (Residents on their own cannot block planning applications). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm struggling to find any references to the lack of building of the restaurants. All the sources I can find are News Articles in response to press-releases from the developer of the council chambers (that were turned into the apartments/flats), very little was published following the abandonment of the sale of the Town Hall itself to those developers by Birmingham City Council in favour of the trust taking over operation of the venue. I'd be interested to hear any advice you might be able to offer!

Hi - I think that's about as far as we can go. If we cannot find any sources, then the wikipedia guidelines indicate that we cannot say anything on that aspect. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, I moved your comments to the article tp as I believe that is where any issues about article content should be posted and potentially discussed, as opposed to user space. This is not a reaction to the revert, I have long had a specific request on my tp that reflects same. Thanks - wolf 16:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi - No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Skipton Building Society

Hello

Can you look at the above for me, with particular reference to my piece on the Talk page which describes how I found the site. In the end I did a total rerite of what was little more than unsourced lists and you might like to see if some of the warnings at the top could be removed. I would like to have eliminated the Controversies section as someone clearly has an axe to grind, but I do not know enough to be able to edit it impartially.

Regards Bebington (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi - You seem to have done a pretty good job of the re-write. I have given it a bit of a polish and removed the tags. I think what remains of the controversies section should probably stay. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Bebington (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thought on date precision in town hall articles

Hi, thanks for writing these articles! I have a concern about the use of categories like "Government buildings completed in 1450". I think someone reading this would reasonably conclude that this is a date known with total certainty, that on some date in the year 1450 the building was finished and officially opened. But this isn't what the sources say: for example for Yelde Hall the source is "estimated construction date of 1446-1458".

Part of why I wanted to have a think about these categories is that this is something I've already been thinking about, that some articles give a sense of false precision, that Wikipedia articles can imply something is known with more certainty than it actually is. (I was also concerned by the statement in the Stratford Guildhall article that "William Shakespeare attended the school as a child", which is considered very likely by biographers but not known with certainty due to lack of attendance records: I've added "probably".)

So I felt that these categories weren't ideal and removed them. How does this sound to you? Keen to hear what you think. Blythwood (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand the point that you are making. My only concern with your approach is that if a reader is using categories to find really old buildings such as town halls, or churches or hospitals for that matter, they will not find the Yelde Hall at all and focus on a slightly more recent building, which is properly categorised, instead. I completely agree with you about Shakespeare. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The Most Noble

See here for examples of this usage. Opera hat (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

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) 02:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Wall Hall

I have just done some expansion on Wall Hall where you have done most of the work. I would be grateful if you could take a look and just check it makes sense (especially the bit about War Office Selection Boards, Special Operations Executive and Political Warfare Executive which has only recently come to light).— Rod ^talk 17:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks great to me - great job! Dormskirk (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

New Head of the Royal Navy Medical Service

https://www.repton.org.uk/news/2021-02-12/Old-Reptonian-Repton-Governor-Fleur-Marshall-promoted-to-Royal-Navy-s-most-senior-medical-position

in succession to Inga Kennedy.

BlueD954 (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Noted. See Fleur Marshall. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You got the rank wrong. Surgeon Commodore.BlueD954 (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Now amended. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page move

Hey Dormskirk. Would you mind please deleting Talk:Structure of the British Army, so that I can move Talk:List of units and formations of the British Army 2020 over, as whoever conducted the page move has only halfheartedly done it. Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 12:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if the talk page has been moved as well now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Consort?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Repulse_(1916)

Why is the word consort appropriate?

BlueD954 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen the term used in this way. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well fix it. BlueD954 (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not my area of expertise, and I don't dabble if I am not knowledgeable. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet (not you lol)

Hey Dormskirk! Thought this may interest you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28. Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, noted, thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Indian Army Commands

Template:Indian Army Commands has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I have noted my support for the deletion on the discussion page. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Building Societies

Good mornimg

Back to the building societies. I have just finished an entry on the Temperance Building Society; given that it was once the largest society I am surprised that there was nothing there on Wiki. Unfortunately, there is very little published material available on the last twenty years of its existence, particularly the merger with Bedfordshire and the formation of the Gateway. There are a couple of red links in the text and I have not been able to sort out how to make them work. I have done it before.

The Temperance is the 17th building society where I have either added a substantial early history or created a new article. It is amazing how few contributors use the published histories. From my library I have West Brom and Woolwich left to do – both articles look very messy. I have also thought of doing an entry on the Liberator, again once the largest society and one of the great financial frauds. I think there is enough material in the Cleary and Seymour Price histories.

I did have a look at the general article on building societies and the history is very poor – almost entirely recent years. I don’t think I can face tackling it!

Regards

Bebington (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi - The article on the Temperance Building Society looks really good. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Re "The Woolwich"

I see you have already looked at the Woolwich article, which I have just finished. I have put in an extensive history ssection and through most of its time the Society operated as the Woolwich Equitable. I think the title of the article should reflect that and Woolwich Equitable would be a better title than "The Woolwich" which was never more than a short-lived marketing name. I don't know if there are special rules about changing titles.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Well done on your good work on the article. Guidelines on moving articles can be found at Wikipedia:Requested moves. While I can see the logic for requesting a move you may get some opposition on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME. Many people will remember it being marketed as "The Woolwich". That said please feel free to follow the procedure and request a move and see what happens. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - Point taken. I don't think it is that important so leave alone. Bebington (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Liberator Building Society

Hello,

I have finished the preparation of an article on the Liberator, once the largest in the country and one of the great C19th frauds. However, when I try to create a new page, I just get a diversion to the page on Jabez Balfour. Could you create a "Liberator Building Society" page for me.

Thank you. Bebington (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Done. I have removed the redirect. Please go ahead and edit the blank page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have put the article in and I think it has worked OK. I will have another read through it tomorrow. It was interesting to do. That is now the last of the building societies so I had better look at another sector.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks good. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I have just noticed that you gave me a Barnstar in May (it didn’t appear on my home page) for my work on building societies. Much appreciated as I had put considerable time into it. It is surprising how much time it takes to precis a book!

I have moved on to Savings Banks and done the first three – the Birmingham Municipal and the Edinburgh were particularly interesting reads. I was surprised to see how little has been written on the savings banks. Although there was a short piece on the Rev. Duncan, there is no article on the original Ruthwell Savings which I will do later.

I have done a few odd ones including Fife Coal Company which then threw up some interesting editing problems. There was an original article amounting only to six or seven lines and that is not untypical. I never like to remove text if I can avoid it but a short intro usually has to be removed as its facts get reproduced in different paragraphs in the new enlarged text. I usually explain the removal by saying “subsumed into the new text” or something like that. The deleted text would also contain citations which I try to preserve, if it works, in the enlarged text but they are often secondary sources whereas I may prefer using a primary source.

Usually, this removal of text is ignored or accepted as inevitable but it seemed to have caused a problem to an editor, Mutt Lunker’s talk page. I have no problem with edits as they are often very useful, picking up mistakes, missing links, etc. Some are pedantic – one person’s style versus another’s but I can never be bothered to argue. However, I did go on to Lunker’s talk page to make some points. In particular, he had added a footnote which seemed to imply his added citation was the source for my whole paragraph, which was factually inaccurate. I then saw the extent of his other changes and expressed some despair (probably not tactful) at how many were misleading. All I got back were lengthy “tellings-off” for not realising I do not own the article. At no point did he ever address the points that I had made. Interestingly, if you look at his talk page, it seems dominated by arguments over edits, not always of the friendliest nature.

The frustrating thing about editing Wikipedia is when one has put in a lot of work, along comes someone who just seems to enjoy making edits for the sake of it. I have just had one for Aberdeen Saving Bank and for once I just undid the lot although within the changes there were probably some useful ones.

Regards Bebington (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I have taken a quick look at your work on the Fife Coal Company and it looks good to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Good morning

I have now completed the histories of eleven savings banks (list on my home page), many of them new entries. These have mainly been based on company histories in my possession. The early years of these organisations are very interesting and I was surprised that there was nothing on the Ruthwell Savings Bank. Also, apart from a couple of lines, there was nothing on the Yorkshire Bank early history as the Yorkshire Penny Bank, where it adopted a unique structure. There are others that were large savings banks in their time for which I have no official history or none exists. For some of them, it is possible to write a short article based on the Horne Savings Bank history plus some internet material. Do you think it is worth preparing a short entry just to get the organisation on record and hope that someone else might be able to build on it.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You need to be a bit careful of issues of notability with short articles. It is sometimes better to write a longer article with a variety of sources: it is less likely to be deleted. But good work! Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Unilever wikipedia page - inaccuracies

Hello Dormskirk,

Hope you're well.

I wanted to ask for your advise on how best to edit quite a few inaccuracies on the Unilever Wikipedia page - I do work from the company but have looked at the COI page which does not preclude employees from making changes, it is just discouraged.

I wanted to correct some inaccuracies - for example, Unilever does not sell a lot of the products listed in the first paragraph including pregnancy tests and chewing gum for an example. And the 13 brands with sales of one billion does not include brands such as Marmite and Surf but the page suggests they do.

I do not want to change anything big but just correct the inaccuracies across the page. Would this be possible? And if yes, how can we go about this?

Thanks so much, Charlotte --Dxter10 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you post a note on the Unilever talk page, disclosing your interest and stating the changes you are proposing to make. I would then wait a few days and then, if there are no objections, as the changes do sound relatively minor, I would have no objection to you implementing them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

British Army

Why you cancelled my edits? u can check this source:"Quarterly service personnel statistics 1 October 2020". GOV.UK. Retrieved 22 January 2021. (this is the source that the previous number is based on) as of 1 October 2020 they are 29,790 peoples in the Volunteer Reserve. go check it out the data is on Table 1: Trends in UK Forces Strength. and BTW I made almost 9400 Global edits (I know its nothing compare to your 100,000 edits) I know how to cite sources. if I was wrong and didn't understand the data, I'm sorry for bothering you. Benbaruch (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. My mistake. You are quite right: for some reason the editor who previously updated the data, failed to update the figures for reserves that you have now quite rightly updated. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Image formats

Hi, I'm confused by your use of image formats. I first saw that File:Timpson Group logo.jpg is a JPEG, then saw that the logo images you have uploaded recently are a mixture of PNG and JPEG. The latter shouldn't be used for most non-photographic images, as this tends to degrade the quality. It doesn't look like you've just copied JPEG files from the companies' websites, so I'm wondering why you've done this. — Smjg (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I have never been particularly discerning about the file format but will bear in mind your comment about JPEG. Thanks for the suggestion. Dormskirk (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Here the pie goes for you! I wish I could have one of those right now. Keep up the good work! V. E. (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sigh

They're back at it [1] Mark83 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is very misguided. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lewes Town Hall

On 25 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lewes Town Hall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Auguste Rodin's erotic sculpture The Kiss was removed from Lewes Town Hall during the First World War after a local headmistress complained? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lewes Town Hall. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lewes Town Hall), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Brigadier General R. J. Kentish

In working on a new page, I have come across this remarkable character. I wonder if you would like to have a go at him, or shall I? Moonraker (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I see there is a whole book about him. I am quite focussed on town halls at present so I suggest you go ahead. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

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) 12:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Lamprell

Hi Dormskirk, I am just getting familiar with wiki as a new user which you clearly noticed. Thank you for your comments on Lamprell which I was updating recently since the information was hugely out of date. Thanks for updating the financials - I was struggling to do that and upload the latest annual report. I appreciate your patience.

Sofie Verbruggen (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi - No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, me again. I was just wondering where you got the 2020 operating income from for Lamprell? It is not listed anywhere in the 2020 Annual Report, which is referenced, so can I suggest you change that to one of the other numbers that is listed in their annual report, EG EBITDA - 3.9 or Net cash - 112.4 or anything else? I will add some more to the history in due course - just finding the right resources to use as references. Trust this is ok.

OK I have gone and added a few things and used proper references. Please let me know if this is now correct and you are happy with these updates and the citations I have used? Hopefully all done correctly. Also, can the box be removed about a major contributor having a close connection with its subject? The information posted is neither positive or negative but factual. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks

Hi the operating loss came from the audited consolidated income statement on page 98 and appears as (31,954) which I have rounded to (32.0). Any figures should be taken from the statutory audited accounts rather than management reviews or management presentations which are often adjusted for various reasons. The additions you made look fine - I have made a few tweaks. If you add anything more, remember it needs to be neutral and should really include critical material as well as positive statements. I have also now removed the tag. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, noted and thanks for explaining.

New Army Sergeant Major

https://mobile.twitter.com/ArmyCGS/status/1422592637018808323

2401:7400:4007:7793:5968:5985:E832:DF10 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. There does not seem to sufficient information on him in the public domain yet to enable us to create an article. Dormskirk (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

rubbish check service no 25058132.2401:7400:4007:7793:C14B:4321:ED9:96B1 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Now done. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

his picture https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/our-people/senior-leaders/army-sergeant-major/

2401:7400:4007:7793:507D:D37B:7C36:643D (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It says "crown copyright" at the bottom: there is no indication that an open government licence applies. Dormskirk (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Masters and Commanders

Was first published in the UK by Allen Lane in 2008, which probably explains the confusion! DuncanHill (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. Well spotted! Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

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) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

RGR

Can you restore my RGR rank contribution that you deleted so that I can add the ref that was preempted by you? I do not have the restore ability

Bluenose Gunner Bluenose Gunner (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Restored on the understanding that a proper reference will be added immediately (you should be including the references with any new material when you add it). Dormskirk (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for trusting me and helping me out Bluenose Gunner (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Help needed please!

Dormskirk, please could you position my 1st to 4th userboxes in a suitable box of 6. I've managed get the 5th alongside the 6th, but now the ones above have gone wrong! I've tried endlessly, but it's not right! I hope this won't break your rules? Anne (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have had a go: is that what you had in mind? Dormskirk (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you so much. Anne (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Is that userbox I put on my userpage the one which automatically moves forward?! If it isn't, would you be kind enough to replace it with the one which does? Anne (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Anne - Yes, it looks to me as if it does automatically move forward. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

General Wayne Eyre

Reference the medals I have edited the reference is the picture. The official picture show the medals wearing by the member. Orders are easy to add a references because the member is list on the Canada Gazette. But for deployment medals there is no references beside his military profile which is not possible to have access.

Hi - You need to observe WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS which requires that you use "reliable, published sources". It is for this reason that it is not normally possible to include campaign medals. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for adding the dates in this page which I did not know. (Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell). SSG123 (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggia and Lindisfarne

Thanks for the nudge! I have been meaning to do something about her and her cello for ... am embarrassing length of time. Cheers DBaK (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Hope Troubridge

Hello
Thanks for your note; I got the information from here, but when tried to I add it I got a message saying it was unreliable "according to the discussion here" (only, when I followed the link I couldn’t find any such discussion). I’ve also since tried the link in the sandbox, without getting any such message. Can you shed some light on this? Thepeerage.com seems OK to me, and the entries are sourced: What’s the problem, exactly? Swanny18 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for asking. "The Peerage.com" is regarded as an unreliable source. But, the Peerage.com got their information from "Mosley, Charles, editor. Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes. Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003" - which is a reliable source so all you need to do is source you additions to Mosely. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

David Steel (Royal Navy Officer)

Honours section been removed, some of it had it referenced KBE, KtSJ. Do we need to remove all? Charles Montgomery (Royal Navy officer) have Honours sectiom. Ikatemag (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi - WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS are very clear that all information, particularly information on living persons, must be properly referenced. While the KBE and CBE were referenced it is much preferred that such information is presented in good prose (see WP:PROSE) rather than list form. Assuming that it is presented in prose, the table then becomes repetitive. Thank you for pointing out the anomaly regarding Charles Montgomery which I have now sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Royal Lancers Page

The image ofthe 17th Lancers plaque in Christ Church, Mhow, India is relevant in my opinion - since the crest bears the motto "Or Glory". Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Royal Lancers was only established in 2015 and including the image there, in my opinion, creates an anachronism. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Banff Town House

One more for ye. There is more info in both the Canmore and HES links that I haven't yet added, but I'm sure you have other sources too. Seasider53 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. I will take a look. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Seasider53 Now expanded, thanks for alerting me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The Rose Code

No idea if it is notable enough to be in a "Literature" section, but it's not self-published. It's published by HarperCollins. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that - that changes my view. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Tagging

Hi Dormskirk, just wanted to apologise about all the tags you're about the receive. For some reason, only after doing it did I think about combining everything on my talk page, my apologies. J-Man11 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

10th Earl of Cavan

Hi, thanks for your quick work; only instead of deleting all the books referenced (previous wiki page - [2]), why not wait to find the book page numbers or leave the tags for someone else to complete?? (User talk:Cltjames) 9Nov-19:34.2021.

Hi - I did a lot of work to improve this article in 2012 to managed to get it assessed as B-class as part of an assessment for the WikiProject Military history. And I certainly don't want another editor to come along and downgrade it because of lack of adequate referencing. I can tell you, it is pretty soul-destroying. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

-Interesting guy in the military and all; I'm sure it's common sense to think this, but why don't you try and find the page numbers and put the references back on the page? (User talk:Cltjames) 9Nov-22:42 2021

Because I do not have those particular books (they were added to the article more recently by another editor). Also they are general reference books not biographies of Cavan. Dormskirk (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jan Smuts' middle name

I would entirely agree with your Talkpage post, but it seems that both of us are wrong - see my reply there. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Talk page comments that are against policies can be removed. please see WP:TPO, I have already left a note on that users talk page. If he wishes he will post his comment by rephrasing it. You do not need to intervene to restore rants. Also please do not remove my unrelated comments like you did last time. Venkat TL (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The comments were were not against policies at all. Your removal of comments by other editors which you do not like is completely unacceptable. Dormskirk (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Let that editor decide it, please do not edit war over this. I have left a note for him on his user talk. Venkat TL (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree that edit waring is unacceptable. I sought to restore the comments of another editor and yet you have deleted them twice. Dormskirk (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Because a talk page of an article is not the place to vent against Americans. The rant was removed following WP:TPO. He should know better. And same goes for you too. Wait for him to come online and do the needful. Venkat TL (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

And my talk page is not the right place for you to make postings on this topic either: please stop. Dormskirk (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is the right place to discuss your edit warring to restore rants against the Americans. Your revert was against WP:TPO and this page is the right place to bring that up. I am done here. Venkat TL (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored one comment on an article talk page which I considered reasonable - I asked you not to post any more to this page and you have insisted on pursuing the matter despite the fact that I have asked you not to: completely unacceptable. Dormskirk (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell

I'll trust you were correct, but my source capitalized Plc.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I cant say I feel strongly about it but if you look at the first line of the Auditors' Report on page 192 of the Annual Report, the auditors address their report to "Royal Dutch Shell plc". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, this would have to be standardized for all companies.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

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) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

158 RLC

Sir,

I've been asked to contact you regards the 158 RLC page. We don't mean to disrespect your entries at all. We are a group of 158 (Royal Anglian) veterans who've been marginalised and forced out by the merger of 160 and 158 RLC. We aren't looking to make mischief or otherwise denigrate from your work, but due to the takeover, and virtual destruction, of our once fine regiment, and the fact that war veterans are now being ignored, we find ourselves at a point where we no longer have the voice we deserve. We're very sorry for hindering your work, and mean absolutely no malice in it. Could you perhaps make a separate page about 158 (Royal Anglian)?

Yours

Mark Miller 2A01:4C8:C2A:4667:1:2:E8D0:9C34 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There is already a page on 158 Regiment RLC. We don't do multiple pages on the same regiment. Please read WP:SOAPBOX: sorry, but wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should not be used for advocacy. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I understand exactly what you mean by multiple entries, but the current 158 RLC is a totally different regiment from 158 (Royal Anglian). The flashes, beret, ethos, role and Brigade have changed. Comparing the old regiment to the new is the same as likening the Hampshire's to the Queen's Regiment.

Yours

Mark Miller 2A01:4C8:C2A:4667:1:2:E8D0:9C34 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In history, many regiments are from time to time disbanded and re-raised, in which case we would deal with that by a new section in the same article. But it is unlikely that any progress will be made while the existing article is being vandalised. Dormskirk (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir,

Again, thank you for reply. A different entry would be absolutely great. If you need any help in creating this, we would be more than happy. We have many memories and pictures we would be more than happy to share with you. In the meantime, we will stop with the silliness.

Yours

Mark Miller 2A01:4C8:C2A:4667:1:2:E8D0:9C34 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That would be helpful. Dormskirk (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with Sculptor Capital Management edits

Nice to meet you, Dormskirk. I'm Michael. I have an edit request at Talk:Sculptor Capital Management. I noticed you actively edit pages related to business and finance, and have edited other pages in the Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange category. I would be grateful for your review of my request and the implementation of these updates if you agree. Thank you! Michael at Sculptor Capital (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi - Apologies. I voluntarily decided to withdraw from working on edit requests some in December 2020 after being criticised by an admin for adding a few sentences, which I regarded as well presented and factual, to an article on behalf of a conflicted editor. I suggest you log your request using an {{request edit}} on the article talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

EG Group

OK, I readded the information on EG America with proper links. However, while I do agree with you that they needed sourced, completely removing the section was not necessary. Having the "citation needed" sufficed until they could be sourced.

Additionally, what I previously DID have sourced was an image I took at a Turkey Hill--and NOT photoshopped--of them selling Cumberland Farms coffee. The link of them being the 4th largest U.S. convenience store chain was also accurate--the link said 5th, but didn't take into account 7-Eleven buying Speedway--and was also cited. So in the future, be careful what you decide to remove even if you are making good faith edits. You're not the King of Wikipedia. Jgera5 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The picture related was used to describe the text which was completely unsourced. And as for "King of Wikipedia", please read WP:NPA. Dormskirk (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't live in the US. Dormskirk (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Savings Banks

Hello

I have now completed 14 histories of individual savings banks, a large number of which were new entries (the list is on my home page). More could be done with access to additional material but that is the best I can do. I have not touched the existing history of Airdrie Savings Bank as it would involve too much of a rewrite.

You might be able to provide help on three entries. At the box at the top, Manchester Savings Bank is described as an orphan and wants links - but to what?

The box at the top says that additional citations are required for Stockport Savings Bank and West Midland Savings Bank. I have used official histories for both, Horne on saving banks and references to archives. Is that notsufficient?

As an aside, the article on the TSB could be better on the first 150 years of the savings bank movement.

Regards and a happy new year.

Bebington (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi - These are articles look good. A few comments: (i) Manchester Savings Bank: I have removed the tag as it is no longer an orphan (ii) Stockport Savings Bank: I have removed an unsourced bit and deleted the tag (iii) West Midland Savings Bank: I have added one extra reference and removed the tag. Good work! Dormskirk (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have reverted the unsourced sentence and added the source Bebington (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir Hugh Sinclair

Thank you for the input. You were very quick off the start! :). I was still doing battle with the London Gazette referencing at the time. The War and Jubilee medals are not listed anywhere it seems by way of a published source. I do have photographs of them but I am not sure that is acceptable. From my own research I know that Sir Hugh Sinclair is the son of Admiral Sir Frederick Seymour but the only source on the internet is a reference at the Royal Museums Greenwich (https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-482549). Would that be deemed an acceptable initial reference? Regards Heraldic (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Heraldic - Thanks for this. As regards war and jubilee medals these are normally impossible to source so we usually avoid mentioning them. As regards the father and son relationship, in my view, the Royal Museums Greenwich is an entirely reliable source and should be used. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Pitlochry Town Hall

One more for you if you have some time. I can also still pick at the HES reference some more too. Seasider53 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. I will take a look sometime. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now expanded it a bit. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

1894

Hello - well done for all your work on British town and city halls, which is an impressive body of work. One point to watch though - in a few cases I see you've used wording along the lines of "following population growth the town was made an urban district in 1894" when discussing which council built / took over the town hall. I feel this may be misleading, as 1894 was the year that urban and rural district councils were established, under the Local Government Act 1894. In all but a handful of cases, the urban districts created in 1894 were nothing to do with population growth of that specific town at that time. Instead they were places which had previously been governed by a local board or improvement commissioners, (which were also classed as urban sanitary districts after 1872), and the old governing body was superseded by a new urban district council in 1894 under the Act. To take the example of Tring, it had been governed by a local board from 1859, and it was because it already had a local board that it became an urban district in 1894. In fact the population of Tring fell between the 1891 and 1901 censuses, which is why I removed your wording about population growth on the page on Tring Market House.

Keep up the good work. Thanks. Stortford (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. Many thanks for the feedback. Dormskirk (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I reply to your messages?

Take me through the process of how to contact you. How do I reply to your messages? Numista (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - You type in messages just below the messages I posted to you on your talk page. Dormskirk (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Portsoy Town Hall

Struggling with this one. First off, I can't nail down an official address (currently used by Aberdeenshire Council), but either way, it doesn't appear in the list of listed buildings in Portsoy, despite seemingly being a notable structure, by nothing except my eyes. Do you happen to have any info on it to clear this up? Seasider53 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - According to British listed buildings this is the town hall but I think it is a different building. The one you are looking at looks like a converted chapel. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Got it. I think Charles McKean has info on that one too. Seasider53 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Westminster City Council

I wouldn't have thought that a an additional citation would be needed when linking to an existing, heavily sources, wiki article which is specifically about a notable period in the council's history. If you have an interest in reliable sourcing then you could have tried citing the relevant sources yourself (it's simply copying and pasting from the specific article) instead of reverting the edit. However, I have now updated the Westminster City Council History section again and included the relevant citations. Antonine (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

OK. I am sorry you misunderstood: you need to read WP:BURDEN: "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Please make yourself familiar with it. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting WP:BURDEN, which I will bear in mind going forwards. May I, however, please draw your attention to the part where it says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." and "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Please make yourself familiar with these sections of it. Thank you. Antonine (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Rio Tinto (corporation)

Hi - You need to read WP:BURDEN: "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Obviously I cannot make you do anything. On the basis that we cannot leave a section of extremely serious allegations on wikipedia without a citation, I have read through the various sources you used for the previous sentences and identified the one that needed be added. Unfortunately it is the experienced editors who have to do all the cleaning up on wikipedia. Dormskirk (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your adding of the citation yourself.

Surge Of Reason (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Dormskirk, please explain.

Dormskirk I know you are not seriously saying that inaccurate & miss leading information is more important than accuracy & the truth.

Your position seems to be that even tho BHP does not have a London office, & even tho BHP does not have a duel listing, & even tho BHP Billiton is not even the company’s name.

You think Wikipedia should continue to publish slanderous lies & propaganda?

Personally I think Wikipedia should only be publishing accurate information & the truth.

But I guess you feel otherwise?

Seems like people can just claim whatever lies & miss information they want on Wikipedia then. 49.178.83.137 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I have updated the BHP article for the fact that the company is no longer dual listed (the change only took place two weeks ago). If you believe that libellous information has been published on wikipedia, it should immediately be deleted per WP:LIBEL. Please clarify what information you think is libellous on the article talk page. We take the publication of any libellous material very seriously. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Defence Services Secretary

There was a rumour section added and I removed it. Correct? 2401:7400:4003:A14B:DDB0:6506:2309:59CF (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - It looked pretty trivial. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Eldon Millar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_Millar

Do we need the last sentence - it's not related.2401:7400:4003:A14B:1C1A:193E:5008:6F34 (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi - It again looked pretty trivial. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

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) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Commas

Hello, Dormskirk! I hope this message finds you well.

A note about commas in running text. Washington, D.C., with and without the full stops should always be set off by commas, as noted in style guides in the US and UK. See for example MOS:COMMA. See also Q&A on the CMOS website.

American English generally prefers the full stops and British English prefers their absence, although ultimately I'm indifferent on this point.

Thanks. Overtone11 (talk)

OK. Fair enough. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Municipal Buildings predecessor

There’s a nice shot here of (part of) the previous building that stood at High and Tay Streets, if you’re interested in using it. Seasider53 (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will give it thought. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

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) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sun Alliance

Good morning

I know that you have been following Sun Alliance. I have been making changes but there are one or two things that are outside my cofort zone. Sun Alliance had virtually no history of its component parts. You will have seen that I have put in a history section for Sun Insurance within Sun Alliance. I have also published an entry for Alliance Assurance, albeit shorter than I would have liked. It is surprising that such a prominent insurance company never had an entry.

I have put in a number of links to Alliance, including from Sun Alliance. Does it now make sensse to take the history section for Sun Insurance out of the Sun Aliance page and make it a free-standing enntry under its own name. The "Amalgamations" section in Sun Alliance (which I left untouched) could then be tweaked to continue as a short entry on the brief post-merger history of Sun Alliance.

I see that a Wikipedia search for Alliance Assurance gives my new entry but Alliance Assurance Company takes you to Sun Alliance. Not sure how to break that second link.

In short, I suggest a truncated entry on Sun Alliance covering it brief posst merger history, linked to two free-standing entries of Sun and Alliance.

Regards Bebington (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. Please feel free to go ahead. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

All done. I think it makes better ssense now. The insurance companies seem to have very poor histories- if anything. I might try London Assurance next.

Regards Bebington (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Great job. Dormskirk (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is to advise you of a talk page discussion that mentions a recent content dispute you were involved in. Cheers - wolf 01:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Noted and comment made. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Another note regarding this edit you made, the discussion has been moved here, fyi. - wolf 00:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Interserve > Tilbury Douglas?

In light of reports today that Tilbury Douglas is now "fully separated" from Interserve Group Ltd, I have started to think about whether this article might need to be renamed and reshaped. At present, it is mainly about 'Interserve', noting the Tilbury roots and resurrection. Perhaps it should instead be mainly about 'Tilbury Douglas', noting the Interserve interlude? Some of the Interserve financials, CSR, and controversies etc might then be summarised as part of the Interserve history. What do you think? Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I was wondering the same. There is so much on Interserve, my immediate reaction is to to do what we did with Taylor Woodrow i.e. leave most of the material at "Interserve" and to hive off the material on the construction business (and only the construction business) into a new article entitled Tilbury Douglas. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you are right - there isn't a clear progression from TD to Interserve and back to TD; new TD is a radically different business to that which existed in 2000 (no support services, no formwork). And the administration and pre-pack also denotes a break in continuity. If nobody else jumps in, I will start the process in a couple of days (day-job prevents an immediate start :-( ). Paul W (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Dormskirk. I have created a draft Tilbury Douglas article in my sandbox here. Can you please take a look and let me know what you think. If this is heading in the right direction, I was thinking to insert Main links (to TD) into the Interserve article and to paraphrase most of the pre-Interserve history. Paul W (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul W - It looks great - most of the material is construction-focussed which is exactly what we need. Also I agree with what you are proposing for the Interserve article. Best wishes and many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Dormskirk. I have now created the Tilbury Douglas article, and trimmed the Interserve article; I have also made a note of our conversation about creating the TD article in its Talk page. I have, for now, left the foundation dates for both businesses as 1884, but perhaps Interserve should be amended to 2001? What do you think? Paul W (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul W I think it is fine with Interserve showing 1884. If you change it to a later date it might look peculiar in the context that you have left history going was back to the 19th century in the Interserve article. Great job! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

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) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cloudesley Shovell

"The BBC programme is not accessable and seems to be about a clock"

You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-g27KS0yiY The context is the importance of accurate timekeeping in marine navigation. The programme does make the claim (at about 06:30) that Shovell was murdered for his ring, though the edit you reverted was mischievous, of course.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. As you say the programme does make the claim but that of course does not prove anything. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for helping tidy up my recent edits

Hi Dormskirk,

Thank you for helping to edit and tidy up my recent edits at Special Air Service, your assistance is very much appreciated. This was my first time writing anything substantial on WP with more then a few sentences, so the guidance was very helpful.

Carter00000 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

RAF has changed its ranks

https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/raf-ranks/

2401:7400:4008:368F:B93B:E4D3:EA43:86EE (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)3

Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Man Group page edit

Hi Dormskirk,

I’m getting in touch from Man Group and wanted to flag a recent edit made on the Man Group wiki page. The edit brings a piece of information mentioned further down the article up into the first paragraph and makes that sentence quite misleading for the reader in our view as it mixes up two unrelated topics and raises its prominence to become a very significant part of the history of our company (in bold). The sentence is:

The company was a sponsor of the Man Booker Prize, and later suffered losses—some of which have since been recovered—through investment in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Per the WP NPOV (as cited by the user that made the edit), it feels to us that the Madoff issue has now been given undue weight and doesn’t feature in a proportionate manner. Would you agree with that?

For your background, the information is already listed on the page (further down, as below), and based on the nature of the investment as described in the article it was extremely small, representing just 0.5% of AuM of a former division owned by Man Group, and it was not a direct investment into the ponzi scheme, but into a fund of funds that ultimately then invested in it. As you can perhaps tell from the Man Group page, the firm has a long history and a large range of investment funds covering lots of strategies and performance for our clients. Therefore while we have never requested that it be removed as we understand the potential reader interest in such events, I do hope you will agree that the information doesn’t deserve the prominence it has now been given?

Relevant lower section:

RMF and Bernard Madoff[edit]

RMF, a former division of Man Group, invested 0.5% of its funds under management at the time with various third-party funds which, in turn, had positions in funds ultimately managed by Bernard Madoff. RMF was one of 107 financial institutions and 13,000 individuals to invest in such funds. As of 2014, 59% of all such funds have been recovered and returned to various institutions and individuals.

The user who made the edit says that the mention of the Booker prize upfront means the mention of the Madoff investment deserves equal prominence, but the Booker prize was arguably a more significant part of our business so in our eyes feels quite different. However, it is also already mentioned further down the page, so if that is the issue then the higher mention of that could be deleted to help even things out, rather than selecting one negative piece of information to counterbalance it as has currently been done.

I'd be very grateful for your thoughts on this, and please let me know if there's anything you disagree with.

Best,

Danny

Danny Read Man (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I have separated the two issues. If you want to make further changes I suggest you make the case at the article talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I have posted it onto the article talk page. Danny Read Man (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk - just to check, will it be you who weighs in on the issue on the article talk page (apologies, new to wiki editing...)?

Just to flag as well that the 2014 date refers to the date as of which 59% of funds were recovered, not the year of losses as is currently phrased.

Best wishes,

Danny Danny Read Man (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added my view on the talk page. You should now wait for other editors to comment. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Signature

You forgot to add a signature to your message on my talk page, not much different from me missing out on a source. It was listed on the Deaths in 2022 page but he was mentioned on multiple articles so I missed out on some. --Killuminator (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for adding the source. Dormskirk (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

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) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby

I cannot say that I agree with your sentiment that 'as the rank and awards already appear elsewhere in the infobox' they should not be in the section I added them to. Nor do I agree that this is the style that matches the majority UK or British military articles, please see; Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort, Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell etc. In fact I struggle to find many that meet the format you claim to be the accepted standard, admittedly I can see some though these appear to be in the minority. If anything I would argue the information is better suited to being in the infobox.

Grosseteste (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi - Part of the issue is the different type of infoxes. The examples you have given all involve officeholder infoboxes. For military infoboxes, please see Patrick Sanders (British Army officer) and various previous chiefs of the general staff. I am merely following good practice introduced by the military history project. See here for another example to ongoing work to "declutter" military infoboxes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I would say that actually highlights another edit that should be made to Viscount Allenby's page, as he was the High Commissioner for Egypt and Sudan. This information is included in the infobox of all other such office holders, for example Reginald Wingate. Grosseteste (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good point. As he was High Commissioner for Egypt and Sudan I would not have a problem with the military infobox being changed to an officeholder infobox. Dormskirk (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad we could come to an agreement on that, will make those changes now. Grosseteste (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Advice regarding update to Australian alternative investment firm article

Dear Dormskirk,

I’m LizziePEP, an employee of Pacific Equity Partners, an Australian alternative investment firm. You can find out a little more about me and my COI/paid editor status at my user page.

About two months ago, I submitted what I hope other editors will find to be an appropriate update to the Pacific Equity Partners article. It’s been some time since I submitted the request, and haven’t heard anything back from other editors.

I came across your profile in the edit logs of Transfield Holdings, another Australian financial institution. Thought I’d reach out in case you have any insight or advice - should I stay patient and wait for a response regarding my request, or is there a way this edit request might be sped up?

Thanks very much. Lizzie PEP (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi - For many years I used to help conflicted editors, providing the material they wrote was well presented and factual. Since October 2020, I have decided not to respond to edit requests as the whole area is toxic. I see there are currently some 200 requests waiting to be reviewed, so it appears that other experienced editors may have opted out of providing help as well. However, you should get a response to your edit request in due course. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dormskirk, thank you very much for getting back to me. Appreciate your situation and the background you have provided regarding the backlog of edit requests. I will stay patient. Thanks Lizzie PEP (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Insurance companies

Hello

Would you have a look at the new article I have just added om British & Foreign Marine. This has been reviewed by DoubleGrazing who has made the following comments

Overreliance on one source of unknown provenance All sources are primary and therefore unable to establish notability

The article now has an opening banner stating

The article has multiple issues No other articles linked to it [Royal Insurance is] May not meet notability standard Relies largely on a single source

In essence, all these comments derive from the fact that the primary source of the article was the official company history. As you know, I have been adding new companies or adding a substantive history to existing articles, now totalling over 100. These have all had, as a primary source, at least one company history. I know they have their weaknesses but I do not use them if they are obvious hagiographies and the use of the company history as a primary source has never been queried before.

If you look again at Royal Insurance, you will see that there is nothing on its C19th history. Although Peter Pugh’s history has been included in the reading list, it has not been used, yet there is no banner complaining that it is inadequately sourced.

Returning to British & Foreign, it was one of the dominant marine insurers of the C19th and, unless one thinks that the book was wrong, the company clearly was notable – no less than many of the conies I have added. I did include other supplementary references that do point to the Company’s prominence – the Liverpool head office building in 1887; and the Bourne’s directory references to premium income in the years before the Royal acquisition. Again, one cannot verify the directory reference because it is not on the internet – just on my bookshelves.

The central question remains, if there was a notable business, taken over many years ago, and where the only substantive source is a company history, do you exclude it from Wikipedia? If that is the case, I may as well stop ging through my collection of insurance histories.

Regards Bebington (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I agree that from a historical perspective, British & Foreign Marine clearly was an important business in the development of the UK insurance industry. However, the wikipedia guideline on notability focuses on significant coverage. So, unless you have access to a large library of business books, demonstrating notability can be challenging. I would recommend you search for a few more references in order to achieve wider coverage. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Morning

I have proded some additional references to British & Foreign.

I have changed the 1900 reference to make it clear that BFM was the joint leader in marine insurance compapnies.

I included a quote from Martin's 1876 history of marine insurance

I encluded a couple of quotes from Pugh's histoory of Royal Insurance

I don't think you answered my quuestion: "if there was a notable business, taken over many years ago, and where the only substantive source is a company history, do you exclude it from Wikipedia?" Most histories seem to be a trawl through the last twenty years of the internet.

Regards Bebington (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sadly companies which ceased to exist more than 20 years old are often regarded as non-notable, simply because of lack of "significant coverage", and in my view the guideline, which discriminates against such companies, is wrong! Dormskirk (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello

This has come up again - see Thames and Mersey on my talk page. I wish we could get the guuidelines changed. Or some consistency in application. Some of the corporate histories are of a very low level.

Regards

Bebington (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi - Yes, I have just taken a look. The only answer is to find a few more references which will be very challenging for older companies. I write about town halls quite a lot and usually aim for about 10 references. There is no easy answer I am afraid. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Could you have a look again at my user talk page no. 24 "Thames & Mersey Marine moved to draftspace." When this notabiliy issue has been raised elsewhere, the article has been marked and I have done my best to provide additional citations - as in British and Foreign above. No-one has gone as far as removing the article completely. I have managed to add a further citation and corresponded with the reviewer but have been unable to get a reply. I don't understand the editing hierarchy and who has the right to remove articles at the drop of a hat.

I have never written anythinng that cannot be improved but I think is was a reasonable article on an important company and you can see that it is one of a portfolio of insurance coommpanies that I am adding.

Is it possible for you to make this one live again - tagged or otherwise? Bebington (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have tidied it up and moved it. Dormskirk (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Now working on London & Lancashire Bebington (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Company origin IP vandal

Hi, I feel like this may be of useful information for you. The vandal hops beyond 103.210.146.96 and 5.178.202.10. Regards, 175.132.55.210 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will keep an eye out. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Former county councils

Like you created some of the former county councils in England like Hereford and Worcester and Cleveland County Council I have produced a list at User:Crouch, Swale/County councils#Counties abolished completely and there are still some missing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale - I have drafted the missing ones. They may need tidying a bit. Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, they all look fine, that's all county councils now with articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Something else that could also be added are district councils where the district doesn't have a separate article from the settlement namely Crawley Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, (you created Hastings Town Hall the former meeting place) City of Lincoln Council, Tamworth Borough Council and Woking Borough Council. This is like Eastbourne/Eastbourne Borough Council but other district councils should generally redirect to the district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. As you have spotted, I am more focussed on the buildings themselves at the moment. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

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) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)