Jump to content

User talk:Dormskirk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiResearcher (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 17 May 2017 (→‎Wikipedia and Politics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 1 (2007-2011)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 2 (2011-2013)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 3 (2013-2015)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 4 (2015-2016)

Editing Help

Hello. I am not sure of the process of comunicating over Wiki so I appologise if I have got this wrong. You were kind enough to sort out the mess I made after I last tried to update an artical. I am likely to need to update it again soon and wondered if you could help make the update look profesional. If there is a better non public way to communicate that would be helpfull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACDSRC-ADC (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am happy to take a look at the same article again. Please feel free to make the changes and I will try and tidy them up. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Barracks

Many thanks for starting Preston Barracks. I hope to expand in due course, as I have plenty of source material. Within the Brighton and Hove "topic", it was a redlink that had long bothered me, but starting an article can often be the most difficult stage of writing one! Best, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Good luck with this: there is nothing in the article about two world wars at present: it would be good to flesh this out. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, can I tempt you to join this challenge? We'll have a contest for the South East and north soon! So far we have nearly 1900 articles. We'd love for you to be a part of it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I will certainly give it thought. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Marine Uniforms

I don't want to get into an edit war over this situation but could you explain why you made a wholesale deletion of this section in the History of the Royal Marines article without explanation back in June. I restored the section (which was entirely my work) with detailed source references yesterday and now you have moved the entire package to a newly created article? Could you not have consulted with me first? Buistr (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi – Apologies for any difficulties that I may have caused over this issue as well as any lack of consultation. Back in May I conducted a major clean-up of the "History of the Royal Marines" article, (which had been tagged for over 6 years as having "multiple issues"), added numerous citations and removed quite a bit of material which was uncited. Subsequently, in July, a discussion took place about transferring some of the material to a new article on Uniforms of the Royal Marines: the discussion can be found at Talk:History of the Royal Marines#Uniforms section. I was not the editor who suggested this transfer, although it seemed to make good sense to me at the time and there were no objections to the proposal. Nor was I the editor who created the new article.
My edits of yesterday were entirely intended to avoid duplication between the two articles. The citations you provided yesterday were most helpful – many thanks. If your point is that you want to restore the uniforms bit to the “History of the Royal Marines” article, then I am fine with that: my only point is that we should then delete the article on "Uniforms of the Royal Marines". And that would probably require a bit more discussion on the talk page. Apologies again for any difficulties caused. Dormskirk (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Sorry if I seemed a bit grumpy. Happy to let the new RM Uniforms article continue to provide sole coverage of this sub-topic, without duplicated text elsewhere. Cheers. Buistr (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. And thanks again for all your good work referencing it properly! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Asia Challenge

Hi, I wondered if you would be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge? The idea is to showcase the work being done on wikipedia across the continent, and inspire more people to create and work on countries which might not usually get much attention and then possibly running some contests to bring in new editors. I know it's very existence will definitely make me more likely to contribute more, I just destubbed Al Alam Palace which you started nearly ten years ago ;-) Not sure, but if interested add your name to the participants and I'll consider setting something up later in the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I will bear in mind. And great work expanding the Al Alam Palace article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Research

Congrats on good ref additions.

One quibble, however: the My Science ref is misleading. The £126 M for the Oxford consists of grants, unusually, to 2 sep. NHS Trusts and BRC: £114 M to JRH and OUH at Headington plus £12 M to Oxford Health NHS Trust at Warneford further out. This town is big enough for the both... Headline was correct, but either journo/editor didn't realise distinction, or oblivious of effect of suggesting JRH got both grants. It did not. Will therefore revert figure. All BRC figure under Dept of health ref in NIHR article. PS: Newc. U. and hosp BRC gained £16 MProtozoon (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK Fine with me. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this - sorry, careless of me! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Richard Cunningham (English Army officer)! Very much obliged. Where do you get these sources? They're fantastic! Hauling Rags (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got the sources by doing a bit of intensive google searching. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland Station and other enquiries

Hello I wanted some advice I was in the middle of drafting for the above I understand that this command was unusual as it was a seasonal squadron that visited Newfoundland colony to protect fishing convoys of the coast from 1729 and I am aware that the commanders were given the title of Commodore Governor however the governors were not in permanent residence until 1818. We have a List of lieutenant governors of Newfoundland and Labrador and I came across this redundant stub Commodore-Governor my book sources list the post as both a political and naval office do you think it would be fine to still create the Newfoundland Station but make clear it was dual role. Also I have come across some others and wondered what you knew about them they include Commander-in-Chiefs for The Downs (1777-1815), Black Sea (1816-1833), North Sea (1781-1815), Leith (1818-1821), Lisbon Station (1808-1812), Halifax Station (1776-1853), Cobh, Devonport, Guernsey Station, Jersey Station.--Navops47 (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Firstly well done on your good work on the Leeward Islands Station! Yes, it would be fine to start an article on the Newfoundland Station making it clear that it was a dual role. On the other stations, I see no problem creating those either as long as they do not already exist: for example the c-in-c Cobh was the commander of the Coast of Ireland Station. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the feedback I shall proceed and for highlighting the c-in-c Cobh connection to Coast of Ireland Station I will do some further checks before going too far with the others.
Hi - I also suspect that the c-in-c Halifax Station is the same thing as Commander-in-Chief, North American Station; also that the c-in-c Devonport is the same thing as Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dormskirk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trafigura - new section on diesel in Africa

Hi Dormskirk, a new section has been added to Trafigura on a report published by Public Eye into diesel being sold in Africa. Trafigura's response was published in a fair number of French-language papers – I've posted on the talk page with a suggested short second paragraph. If you've got time to take a look that'd be much appreciated. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and inserted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrovial

why did you delete my edition? maybe this link will help you: http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/310425/new-nauru-camp-operator-staying-till-oct-2017 Greetings --Smegger (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I deleted it because the term "concentration camp" in the first sentence is very pejorative and breaches the wikipedia guideline of WP:NPOV. Also the second sentence "In this camp all refuges are concetrated wich tryed to reach australia by boat" makes no sense at all and is not sourced from the article you cited. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing" redirects

RE: this diff, there really is no need to "fix" redirects like this, indeed the practice is discouraged, see WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The whole section "Sources and further reading" really needed a bit of a clean up, which I have now completed. Dormskirk (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are blogs considered as reliable sources?

Bingo Wings keeps using a blog for his references. Is that reliable?

JessPavarocks (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - WP:NEWSBLOG referring to blogs says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." My concern with uk armed forces commentary is that it does not appear to be written by a professional journalist from a news organisation. Rather it is a self-published source which is not acceptable under WP:RSSELF. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The author of that blog fails to cite his sources and likes to make threatening comments as well.JessPavarocks (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

help

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

Can you fix the table for me? Thanks JessPavarocks (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It only needed a tiny tweak. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!JessPavarocks (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Regiment

I've removed the Christmas news message which says nothing about the transfer of companies to PWRR or the RIFLES. Just to let you know. http://thefusiliers.org/the-colonels-christmas-message-and-news-of-regimental-growth/

JessPavarocks (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I should have removed "former" at Geoffrey Biggs... don't know what I was thinking of... maybe not much. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, as someone who has been very helpful in tidying up the RELX Group page I was wondering if you could give us your thoughts on possibly editing down the length of the 'Controversy' section on that page? Obviously as an employee I'm wary of suggesting anything that could be seen as whitewashing, and that's certainly not my intention, but that section is quite lengthy and all of the subjects are a number of years old now. Do you think it would be possible to remove some of the finer details which really aren't terribly relevant any more, to shorten the paragraphs? My main concern at the moment is that having this large section makes RELX Group appear to be quite a controversial company which, in the grand scheme of things, it really isn't. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would steer clear of that if I was you. It might stir up a hornet's nest and attract more adverse media attention for the company. But that's my view. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Army & Iraq

I believe they are back in Iraq as part of Op Shader. Whether it is considered as British Army base is another matter but too busy to find source. At best, think it is British troops in an Iraqi base for training them.

Regards

JessPavarocks (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK will bear in mind. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trafigura - some updates

Hi Dormskirk, there are a few things that could do with updating in Trafigura – see here for a marked up userspace draft.

  • Infobox: Name correction to Trafigura Pte Ltd plus some up-to-date stats.
  • Intro: Name correction plus the registered office is now in Singapore so it should really now be called a Singaporean company.
  • Investments: The Ferrocarril del Pacifico project isn’t going ahead as they’ve now pulled out of that investment (see here, in Spanish), and they’ve recently taken a stake in Essar Oil in India.
  • Bond issuances: They’ve doubled the size of a 2014 Samurai loan.
  • Activities: There are a few updates on trading volumes as well as on tankers – they’ve now sold their last remaining tankers so are no longer in that business.
  • Corporate structure: Galena is now based in Switzerland, and Lord Strathclyde is still on the Galena board and hasn’t stated that he intends to stand down – that’s been there for a long time and is left over from the first time he stepped down from the board.

If you could take a look and let me know what you make of these changes that’d be much appreciated. If you're happy with them, there's a clean version on the talk page of this draft. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have applied the clean version. Well done on making the update so easy for me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that's great thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty department navigation template

Hi hope you are keeping well? I am drafting a navigation template based on the broad structure of the admiralty when it existed and I as wondering if you could take a look at it and give me some constructive feedback found here User:Navops47/sandbox3 many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - It looks fine to me. Good job! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do not undo my edit

thanks
please leave the edit I did on the page he is my family not your and i want the edit left! if you would like to ad references go ahead but leave the edit alone CMS02 (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have as you requested, added the references for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect sir your information is not current and not accurate, Bill Leach was the Chairman of the Board of the Museum of Canadian History not the War Museum the War museum is part of the larger what is now known as the Museum of Canadian History, http://www.historymuseum.ca/ http://www.historymuseum.ca/media/new-chair-appointed-to-board-of-trustees-of-the-canadian-museum-of-civilization-corporation/ I have attached a reference for you

I am simply trying to respect my father last wishes he did not create this wikipedia page someone who he did not know created the page out of respect for my late father can you please update the page so it is accurate and save me some hassle. Kindest regards thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMS02 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's very helpful. I have now made the link to the Museum of Canadian History. Let me know if there are still any issues with it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 76th Regiment of Foot into McDonell's Highlanders. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lubrizol request

Hello Dormskirk. I see that you have made constructive edits to Wikipedia articles on companies. Would you be willing to look at an edit request on the Lubrizol Talk page? If you look at the page now, you'll see an About section that includes two random facts. I have proposed to replace About with a section outlining the specialty chemical company's operations. You'll also see that I was in discussion with another editor, who suggested that others work on the request. Because of my conflict of interest, I am keeping my involvement on Talk pages. Thank you for any help or advice you can give. Lz maor (Talk · COI--Lubrizol employee) 14:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor seems to have sorted this for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dormskirk, I see that now. Thank you very much for looking into it! Lz maor (Talk · COI--Lubrizol employee) 21:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating HICL page

Hello there

I noticed you have updated the HICL wiki page in the past. I work in Investor Relations for InfraRed, HICL's Investment Manager, so am conflicted. I was hoping you could change/ add some points which are now out of date? Let me know and I will send over some suggestions. Thank you so much. Collinsfvc (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to take a look. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is great, thank you. All of the updates below that I am suggesting are directly taken from the Company Interim Report which is a public source. Most importantly, HICL is no longer just a PPP investor but also regulated assets and demand based assets. May I suggest the following as a guide of what might be suitable:

HICL Infrastructure Company (“HICL”) (LSE: HICL) is a British investment company dedicated to managing and growing a portfolio of infrastructure investments positioned at the lower end of the risk spectrum.

Company Overview

HICL seeks to provide investors with long-term income, at sustainable levels, and to preserve the capital value of its investment portfolio with the potential for capital growth. HICL is a ‘buy-and-hold’ equity investor whose target infrastructure market segments are PPP (social and transportation projects), regulated assets (e.g. gas and electricity transmission and distribution; water utilities) and demand-based assets (e.g. toll road concessions and student accommodation).

Market Information • Founded in 2006 • The first infrastructure investment company to list on the London Stock Exchange • Member of the FTSE 250 Index

Portfolio • Investments are located primarily in the UK, but also in Australia, North America and Europe • Investments are generally operational • Long-term, predictable, inflation-linked revenues

Governance • Independent Board comprising seven non-executive directors • Registered in Guernsey and its Chairman is Ian Russell • Investment management of the Company is undertaken by the Investment Adviser and Operator, InfraRed Capital Partners Limited.


Thank you very much, I really appreciate any help you are able to give.

Best wishes, Collinsfvc (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I have updated the text so that it is clear that the activity relates to infrastructure investment rather than just PFI investment. As regards the rest of the text please read WP:CITE. The material needs to be independently sourced so information that has come from the Company Interim Report is inadmissible. Please take a look at other FTSE 250 companies and you will what I mean. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

OK- understood and thanks for explaining. Worth pointing out though that the reports are always checked by an independent auditor. However, I have gone through some of the facts worth including and have found sources from well known papers/ well known trade press to back them. Please see references below each point. Given that HICL has a market cap of c.£2.5bn now and the popularity of infrastructure investments, it may worth having a longer wiki entry than what there is at present to give a fuller picture of what the Company is about and my points below are a guide to ensure accuracy.

Please see below to proposed text with references.

Thank you for your consideration.


HICL Infrastructure Company (“HICL”) (LSE: HICL) is a British investment company dedicated to managing and growing a portfolio of infrastructure investments positioned at the lower end of the risk spectrum.

Company Overview HICL is focussed on three market segments: PPP (social and transportation projects), regulated assets (gas and electricity transmission and distribution, and water utilities) and demand-based assets (such as toll road concessions and student accommodation). Source: ‘Portfolio Review’ section in http://www.hl.co.uk/news/articles/hicl-infrastructure-company-limited-on-track-to-raise-dividend-ahead-of-inflation

Market Information Founded in 2006 Source: Government-backed revenues in http://citywire.co.uk/money/hicl-share-offer-4-9-yield-at-a-smaller-premium/a995398

The first infrastructure investment company to list on the London Stock Exchange Source:First line of https://www.bestinvest.co.uk/news/hicl-infrastructure-new-fund-raising

Member of the FTSE 250 Index Source: First line of http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1458285939410761900/hicl-infrastructure-to-raise-gbp25-million-through-tap-issuance-(alliss).aspx

Portfolio Investments are located primarily in the UK, but also in Australia, North America and Europe Source: End of first para https://www.bestinvest.co.uk/news/hicl-infrastructure-new-fund-raising

Investments are generally operational Source: Eight para of http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2016/11/03/funds-and-etfs/top-100-funds/hicl-expanding-beyond-ppp-assets-into-toll-roads-05XXIDorZmu2e1Q6mXKr2N/article.html

Long-term, predictable, inflation-linked revenues Source: Third and fourth para http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/18/questor-share-tip-hicl-infrastructure-sets-inflation-linked-divi/


Governance Independent Board comprising seven non-executive directors Source: https://hicl.com/team/board-directors

Chairman is Ian Russell Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKFWN10307S20150724?type=companyNews

Investment management of the Company is undertaken by the Investment Adviser and Operator, InfraRed Capital Partners Limited. Source: Sixth para of http://citywire.co.uk/money/hicl-share-offer-4-9-yield-at-a-smaller-premium/a995398


Collinsfvc (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Largely done but I left a few bits out to ensure it does not read like an advert (see WP:ADVERT). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much- that is a big improvement. Look forward to working with you again hopefully. Collinsfvc (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalgety

Thanks for your input. I plan to finish over the next few days. Eddaido (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may add some but most likely they'll be refinements of early history. Do you have any thoughts on the article as it is at the moment? Eddaido (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have done a really good job of it: and the illustrations are great as well. Great job! Dormskirk (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

44th Regt. of Foot - History

Hello,

I recently made an edit to the 44th Regt. of Foot's history regarding further merges with other regiments to form the modern day Royal Anglian Regiment. You completely removed this whole section with some bullshit reason. Why didn't you consult me? You claim to study history yet you removed my 100% accurate section regarding how it became part of the R ANGLIANS. This was what I added:

"Following the release of the 1957 Defence White Paper which saw the British Army undergo restructuring yet again, the Essex Regiment was merged with Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment to form the 3rd East Anglian Regiment. This regiment existed for only a small number of years as the 1966 Defence White Paper was released and saw the British Army undergo even more transitions, resulting in the 1st East Anglian Regiment, 2nd East Anglian Regiment, 3rd East Anglian Regiment and The Royal Leicestershire Regiment being merged together to create one larger regiment - the Royal Anglian Regiment. The Royal Anglian Regiment still exists now and is comprised of three battalions - two regular and one reserve. The legacy of the 44th Regt. of Foot is upheld to this day as the 3rd East Anglian Regiment became the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment."

Do your research and you'll find this is true. Don't touch my edits again without consulting me - you clearly aren't educated on the regiment or it's transitions. Finally, I'm going into the British Army (specifically the Royal Anglians) so I have done my research and know the history of the regiment I'm joining.— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Tom6ix7 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)]] comment added by Tom6ix7 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks you for your edits. The reason I removed the text was that you failed to cite a reliable source (contrary to WP:CITE) and that you included events that took place after the regiment was amalgamated. You will see that I have either written or substantially rewritten the history of almost every regiment in the British Army. I have had tremendous help with this project from many very supportive editors. I have also served in the British Army and have the highest of respect for the men and women of the Royal Anglian Regiment. But I have never had a message like yours before. You might like to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks; personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocking your access to wikipedia. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Neville Chamberlain

Hi Dormskirk. You removed an image from the Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain article with the edit summary, "wrong Chamberlain". I didn't add the image, but I did check it, and it came from the Billiards and Snooker Archive page on the invention of snooker by Chamberlain. Can you tell me why you believe it is wrong, and which Chamberlain it was? Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for pointing this out. I had thought that the photo was of Neville Bowles Chamberlain judging by the age of the medals and the downward turning mustache (Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain is normally shown with an upward turning mustache See pic). But I can see why you think I may be wrong and it may be that both photos are of Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain. So I have reverted my edit to the Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Though actually I'm not sure myself now, having looked at the picture on Findagrave. Both men have an impressive array of medals, but they don't seem to be the same medals. And the big things (orders?) are definitely different. Also, the difference in the faces seems too great to be due just to one of them being older. Maybe the answer would be to upload the Findagrave picture and use it? Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and now done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

In this edit, you undid my previous edit without any explanation. The sentence in question reads, "On 2 April 1982, the Falklands War began when Argentine forces began the invasion of the British Overseas Territories of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia." South Georgia is a disambiguation page, not an article about a British Overseas Territory. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is an article about a British Overseas Territory. I therefore find it difficult to understand why you think your version is superior to the previous one. Can you enlighten me? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies - I think it must have been a slip of my finger. Your version is definitely better! Dormskirk (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ampersands

Thank you again for the kind words up above. Are we not allowed to use ampersands even when they are there as such in the formal name of the business or firm or company? Eddaido (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am not keen on ampersands in the context of striving for good prose (per WP:PROSE). That said I would have thought that if an ampersand forms part of the legal name of the company as registered on the certificate of incorporation at Companies House, then an ampersand should be used. I hope this helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, my thoughts exactly. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Stuart (British Army officer, born 1753), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Romney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Walter Allfrey

You may want to have a look at recent edits to that article; not all of them seem productive to me. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for that. Were there any particular bits that you were concerned about? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utilico Emerging Markets

Hi Dormskirk, just dropping you a note as I've got a COI with regard to Utilico Emerging Markets. The chairman is now a guy called John Rennocks.[1] Would you be happy to make that change? HOgilvy (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Utilico Emerging Markets Ltd". Financial Times Markets. Financial Times. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
Now sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Packard

Hi Dormskirk, In my additions to the 'Career' section, everything contained in the first two sentences of the second paragraph (beginning 'Edward senior') is covered by my footnote (8) (as it presently stands). The information about the Society visit of 1872, the size of the works and the amount of shipping is covered by my reference in footnote (7). In the last paragraph, the information about the date of his father's death and his involvement with the Ipswich Museum is all covered by footnotes (12-16), and Packard junior's early involvement in the Society is indicated in footnote 9. The information about the yacht was I admit based on personal knowledge and I have removed it, but it might be found in the privately-printed memoir. I have replaced the information about the French phosphate mines with more specific statements and references which cover all those statements, and the further late Museum information is introduced to illustrate the involvement of both father and son with sourced references. I hope this will satisfy! Thanks for asking, Eebahgum (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much so - great job! Many thanks and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you. P.S., if the actual processes of phosphate extraction at Bramford interest you, it is well worth reading the 1872 report which is very long and full of detail about how they extracted the sulphur from imported Spanish pyrites geodes, in order to make the acid which was poured on the crushed coprolites in successive tanks within the towers. Good stuff - and pungent! But it promoted growth. Cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Paget, 1st Marquess of Anglesey and plagiarism

In February 2014 you made a series of edits to the article Henry Paget, 1st Marquess of Anglesey. During those edits you removed the Attribution required for articles that have text copied from a PD source. In this case EB1911. At some later point another editor added a link to the Eb1911 article on Wiksource.

I am currently going through a list of all the article on Wikipedia that have a link to EB1911 articles on Wikisource that are not using the standard templates {{cite EB1911}} and {{EB1911}}. Sometimes articles that include text from EB1911 are cited but are not attributed, so I have been running "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" to compare the text of the Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia article.

In this case Earwig returns a result of Violation Possible 60.1% confidence.

Please see WP:PLAGIARISM for why it is important not to remove attribution notices unless all of the copied text has been rewritten. This is not only important for moral reasons, but also because external actors can use it as a stick to beat us with. It is also an issue internally, because if you read the talk page and archives of WT:Plagiarism you will see that a lot of editors do not think PD text ought to be copied into Wikipedia. One of the justifications they use for this is that it is plagiarism to do so. Placing prominent attribution in the article is a way of countering that criticism, (because it can't be plagiarism if the Wikipedia article clearly state that text has been copied from another source).

-- PBS (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree with the point you are making. I thought that I had almost completely rewritten the article (I made a very large number of edits) but clearly some sections from EB1911 must have been retained. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Packard again

Dear Dormskirk, I have 'reshuffled' the Packard article a bit so that it deals with the father and son in two separate sections. I felt this tended towards greater clarity. I see that you created this article (didn't notice that before, sorry!), and hope you will find the alteration acceptable. The information is the same as before. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the quality of the article is very good but it is very unusual to cover two persons in one article. Are you OK if I split the material into two articles: one for Edward Packard (businessman, born 1819) and one for Edward Packard (businessman, born 1843)? Dormskirk (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that if you wish, though I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The story flows well through the two lives and has room for enlargement, which it might well deserve, leaving open the opportunity for a split later? I was guilty of this dual article approach in Julian Clifford - which no-one has objected to (yet). ODNB occasionally does it. I don't want to make work for others, but do as you think best. You might need to duplicate a few of the references for the later article to make sense. Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Alternatively, just undo my edit and I won't complain! Eebahgum (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that ODNB does it but I have never seen it done on wikipedia. I can split Julian Clifford as well if you like. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clifford has lasted for 7 years without demur, despite later edits by various experienced editors - my own preference is to leave it as it is! Many people searching for the name may not be aware there are two, and will find the one they want readily enough and learn something into the bargain. It is a perfectly rational solution, I feel. But I am not one to insist. Cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy to leave Clifford as it is. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 94th Regiment of Foot (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 94th Regiment of Foot (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/94th Regiment of Foot (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bojo | talk 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on finding help for organization article

Hi Dormskirk, thanks again for your review of my edit request on Accenture! I know you've worked a lot on company articles and wondered if you might also have done any editing of articles for organizations or know someone who has? I've proposed some pretty simple updates for the National Automobile Dealers Association article and I'm having trouble tracking down an editor to review. (The request is on behalf of NADA as part of my work at Beutler Ink.) WikiProject Organizations is like a ghost town, and posts at WikiProject Automobiles and to a few editors who are members there have not led to any response. Any ideas where I might look next to find someone interested in this subject area? Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done. And thanks again for presenting the new material so well. Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore Bick

No, you are incorrect - Moore-Bick had a very senior role in the Forces Tiddlywink Society - I apologise for accidentally removing that he was in the Pension Society, but this piece of information is accurate. --81.178.191.21 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I am sure you can find a source for that. Dormskirk (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and Politics

Dear Dormskirk,

We are a team of social scientists conducting research on collaboration among Wikipedians and would love your input. We have prepared a very short survey (it takes just a few seconds to a few minutes) that asks about your political preferences and if you had any experiences collaborating with editors with similar or different preferences. Please fill it out here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSftvvCdGGY07VL1R1O4JhwnOTHl8CyiFnn17gC6EeWgJj-2Bg/viewform?usp=pp_url&entry.587409359=Dormskirk

You can find out more about our research project here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics

Thank you

WikiResearcher (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dormskirk&oldid=780869775"