Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome, and sorry for your not being welcomed in the past!Benon 16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I really like your work on the Flannan mystery. Could you possibly add a reference to your source(s)?--JBellis 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Crockerland
An editor has nominated Crockerland, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crockerland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nazi UFOs. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi UFOs. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Falklands Islands Edit
I confess to complete confusion as to your edit. What has your additions have to do with the supposed Secret Service trap set by the British SS against the German Asiatic Squadron???? Secondly, your references should be the same as the rest of the article. I read the sections you have put in and I am confused.Tirronan (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Von Rintelen was obviously encouraged by British Intelligence, after they "turned" him, to put forward this absurd nonsense about the signal. If you would like me to elaborate my objections I shall do so. As for my own edit I was unable to access the two Wikipedia pages for notes and bibliography otherwise I would definitely have gone down that avenue. I understand from a reliable source that my material could never be published in England. If you are really completely confused by the sections I put in would you like me to explain them to you in another way, or would you, as I suspect, really prefer to delete the whole thing? Regards/Geoffreybrooks 21 November 2011 (I regret that Argentine keyboards do not have lone tildes, only ññññ.)
- Actually there is a bit of proof that false information was fed to the German Intel Service by other means but, no I agree that the idea that the British would expose how they had broken naval codes was hogwash. I'm sure Hall was drunk and spinning tales and that was how it got into that book. Hall is the same guy that said he fed German Intel the position of a Judge that displeased him and got his house bombed! Churchill would of had a fit had it been proposed. My issue is that the focus of the section you added seemed to be the general geopolitical situation in the Southern Atlantic and its just too much for a little Naval battle to deal with. I've deleted for now as I think such a piece has a better place in the WW1 article than here.Tirronan (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The failure of logic in the closing sentences - "just too much for a little naval battle to deal with" - really sums up Wikipedia for me. This is an article about a battle. The most probable origin of the battle lies in the reason I have put forward. Von Spee was proceeding to the Falklands to declare Argentine sovereignty over the islands. This may be geopolitical but it was also the cause of the meeting between the opposing squadrons.
I regret to advise that for the foregoing reasons it appears to me to be a waste of effort to submit further material of any kind to Wikipedia, and with that I desist henceforth. Goodbye. Geoffreybrooks 25 November 2011.
If that's a straight translation, it's copyvio although useful. Please remove the comments you added, they can go on the talk page but not in the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
---Dougweller. Please explain what you mean by "straight translation" and "comments". I have only worked down as far as, but am not going to go into the Vespucci material. Will be online again during tomorrow afternoon. GeoffreybrooksGeoffreybrooks (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 13 December 2011..++++
- Ok. Can you take a look at WP:CITE and try to add some citations? As it is, the article, without any proper citations, still has and should have the unreferenced tag. It looks as though you should have no problem adding references. Why did you remove the bit about icebergs, etc? Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Dougweller: I am taking material as it appears in the original Spanish volume (out of copyright, 1810 etc), translating it into English (I have lived in Argentina for nearly twenty years and so speak Spanish), and then paraphrasing it for the article. I have three more pages of Spanish to work from, which is the report by the Atrevida on aspects of the islands.
I deleted the bit about people wondering if it could be icebergs or mirages for the following reason. Never before has anybody ever bothered to read the Spanish reports of the Aurora and the Atrevida Now we know that the islands were actually visited and could therefore not have been icebergs or hallucinations.
The major of the two books referred to is the Memorias volume which is accessed through the blogspot and looks like it has large chunks of the original book, if not all of it, and so the citations will come from pages 215-218 which I am working on at the moment. I am translating the material overnight and hope to finish tomorrow or Thursday. Geoffrey Brooks 13 December 2011Geoffreybrooks (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The amendments are now completed. Please note that I also did the research on the San Borondon section of St Brendan's Island. Despite my acrid observations which may be noted on the Falkland Islands Battle commentary, this material is so important that it must be included (Aurora=New Dawn). Geoffreybrooks 14 December 2011Geoffreybrooks (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
I've asked before that you reference articles using inline citations as per WP:CITE. You also need to read WP:NOR and avoid adding your own personal analysis or interpretation of sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: inline citations, in this (Pepys) and the other case (Aurora) everything reported is taken from a single book of antiquity and is unlikely to be challenged. I note your remark about personal interpretation of sources.Geoffreybrooks (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Geoffreybrooks 17 March 2012
- You don't understand. You should be able to click on a reference number and be taken to the reference. That's the way we work. If someone came along and reorganised the article and references had been done properly, their numberical order would not be affected. As it stands now, the numerical order would be. I'll also note that 'ibid' is deprecated. It also seems that you are using your own analysis of the map to provide coordinates. I think that's also original research, but that could be discussed at WP:NORN if you want to argue it isn't. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)