User talk:Dpaajones

Page cleaned 10th February 2013

Royal Navy

Hello, I could use your input at the Royal Navy talk page. Some editors are trying to remove any mention of the Royal Navy being a blue-water navy or a global force. Thanks and I hope you get this in time!Osama is Obama (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Katherine More and related pages

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to the Katherine More page and related pages:
Jacob Blakeway
Samuel More
Elinor More
Richard More
Jasper More
Mary More

Background
I created these pages in 2011 and in so doing violated a Wiki principle in that I am the author of two books about the history: one factual, the other a novel. My intention was not to promote the books, but to highlight an historical event that seemed to have escaped the limelight. I accept that this violated Wiki principles and that the pages could be seen as original research. Within a few weeks I was contacted by an American resident in the Pacific North West who bought both novel and history, and requested additional information about the story. I was happy to assist, and made much material available. The American correspondent's main interest was in Richard More, because he claimed to be a descendant; the correspondent also made known that he was in touch with a Wikipedia editor.

Shortly afterwards, I found the pages being multiple edited by an editor called Muggins. The edits were chaotic, inaccurate, full of typos, and much material was deleted and / or changed. I soon found myself in a edit war with this individual.

Muggins deleted some of my contributiosn to the talk pages where I had explained why I had created the pages. He accused me of using the pages to promote my novel and of original research. He referred the matter to a senior editor DGG who also appears to be resident in the Pacific North West. DGG ruled that I was in error and instructed me to edit out references to my work, which I did though reluctantly, because I did not, and do not, agree that the material was original research.
My Appeal
My appeal is to editors in Shropshire. I would like Shropshire wiki editors to seize these pages back. Whilst largely accurate, they present a sanitised version of a Shropshire story. They reference sources taht are very difficult to check, whilst ignoring surces that are freely available (and I am not just referring to my own work here). The pages are badly written in Americanese throughout.

These pages should be written in English, with English spellings. Information about these individuals should make sense to an English reader. Jacob for example was a neighbour or the Mores, not a neighbor. Sources should be freely available, preferably from an online source if one exists.

The Katherine More page has a lengthy section on her royal antecedents. It is my belief that this was written to satisfy the genealogical ambitions of my original American correspondent. It established nothing that would be seen as a royal connection on this side of the pond. It is not a descent in the male line and represents the kind of link that most well-to-do families at the time would have been able to evidence. I therefore think that it is unremarkable and ought to be removed. I would make these edits myself but experience suggests that I would be accused of disruptive editing and my edits deleted. I feel that a group with the authority of the Shropshire Wikiproject might be able to succeed where I failed.
I would welcome your view.
Shropshire Lad (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential superpowers and Brazil?

Hello, I noticed you are active on the Great power article and thought this might be an area where you may also have interest and be willing to share your view. I have recently raised the issue regarding Brazil being included in the article and have made my argument at the article's talk page. Any input of yours would be most welcome and appreciated. Thank you.

I suspect that questioning Brazils place in the article is going to rustle some nationalistic feathers in the Brazilian community. Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The IPs personal attacks and harassment go too far now, I have filed a complaint about the IP to the admin who protected the article (User talk:The Bushranger#Potential superpowers). Also there are too many people at the articles talk page who support our consensus and only a very small group of people who oppose it. The small group also fail to provide adequate reasons/academic citations to support their argument. I find it crazy how one hot headed, user insulting, POV pushing IP with a battleground mentality can be so disruptive and get away with it!

Sometimes I like wonder; if we were all sitting around a table discussing the article how would this anon IP act then? I doubt he would be acting like he is now. It is so amazing how tough people are sitting behind a computer screen.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Engl

I changed it to England for the following reason: [[Engl]]ish produces English. It just saves time in typing, that's all.--Launchballer 12:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:List of Great powers by date=> your question on Britain being doubled in some periods of time

It seems the consensus is most ostensibly around striking the proposal... of course, that was expected. I was experimenting whether I should stretch the template to include Spanish and Portuguese golden eras, as part of the Proto-globalization.. seems not. Now, back to your question. I simply did so because, as you are well aware, the "United States" was an simple assortment of American colonies around 1763. And, if I am correct, the Indian subcontinent was only fully under direct British control after the 1920s. I believe this answers your question. (58.33.151.29 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC))