User talk:Dormskirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)
User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 5 (2016-2018)

Contents

Vodafone[edit]

Have now read your link happy to take out DM! Hellinadustcart (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Also - saw that you corrected a ref on Vodafone - not sure what I did wrong or what you changed? Please can you let me know what I did and how you changed it so I don't make the mistake again? Thanks

Hi - I made a couple of changes (i) to use an alternative source as the Daily Mail is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source per this RfC and (ii) I filled out a citation per Wikipedia:Bare URLs. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Orascom Development for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orascom Development 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/Orascom Development 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. GoldenRing (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018[edit]

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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Achnacarry[edit]

I've come across the article and couldn't initially get my head around a couple of bits so I've tried to continue your re-ordering. I felt I had to change to New Achnacarry to New Achnacarry Castle otherwise something didn't feel right to me reading it. I've given the Cameron Clan Museum its own heading and done a redirect article for it (which also resolved a redlink to it) from list of museums. Your are welcome to check in case I have done something stupid. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits look pretty good to me. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

Hi, I cleaned up some of the work you did at the FTSE 100 Index article (the Record Values section). You apparently inserted an unhelpful citation to the BBC website (without using wayback). Since the site is updated regularly, I don't think it would be good enough to use it as a citation for a historical record value. 42.111.86.194 (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If reverted that cleaning because on balance there's some risk it was promotional, and have left a section in talk to discuss. That said there may be an issue in the section. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the point: I have now sourced the information to a Morning Star article instead. Dormskirk (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages[edit]

Hi Dormskirk. I understand your frustration, but it's best not to re-instate notices that an editor has deleted from their talk page. They are permitted to do this under the talk page guidelines, which says this counts as reading them, and the notices are still in the page history. Kanguole 12:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018[edit]

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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A goat for you![edit]

Boer Goat (8742860752).jpg

Thank you

HayleySandford (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello. Help expand the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.171.248.63.149 (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Not my area of expertise. Dormskirk (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

jet[edit]

I agree with your edit. StevenBKrivit (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

hi[edit]

British Army website has changed so many links you added arw broken.119.56.97.52 (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018[edit]

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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sir Stuart[edit]

http://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Display/Article/1487239/readout-of-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dunfords-meeting-with-unit/

How do you add this medal to Stuart Peach list of medals? 119.56.102.246 (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Just follow the same format as for the other medals. Here is the file for the Legion of Merit ribbon: File:Legion of Merit ribbon.svg Dormskirk (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

Thank you

HayleySandford (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

St James's Place[edit]

This page is for historical and neutral information about St.James's Place. The link I removed is entirely negative press, which violates Wikipedia's neutral citation guidelines. Thank you Dormskirk.

It may be negative but seems to be entirely valid. See Which. The article explains in some detail how the company has been misleading customers. "Which" is a highly respected publication. Dormskirk (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk. I am unsure of why this is a Conflict of Interest. I am not an employee of St. James's Place Wealth Management, nor are they directly providing me compensation for managing their Wikipedia page. I do not understand why you are continuing to place some sort of negative material on their page, and negative material only.

Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral resource for information for all users. Because of this Wiki neutrality, it does not need to be blasted on their page that Which previously had an article about them "misleading clients". Which is a highly respected publication, but the context in which it was cited on the page was negative. Which's article itself is negative, in which it is also unreasonable to cite it in the first place.

It is my interpretation that including repetitive negative links does not follow the neutrality standards that Wiki had set forth.

Hi - In your edit summary you said "Referencing these links that discuss St. James's Place Wealth Management as "bad financial advice" on our personal St. James's Place Wikipedia page is an act of online vandalism". What do you mean by "on our personal"...page? Dormskirk (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

When stating "our personal profile" I was speaking on behalf of St. James's Place and did not intend for it to be interpreted that I am an employee of the organization. Apologies for the confusion, I can certainly see now how it can easily be interpreted that way. Speaking on behalf of them in defense to ensure there is nothing but neutral press on the page. This remains true for every organization on Wikipedia as a whole. Do you not agree that the Which article and others previously referenced are negative press? Even if truths exists within the context of the story, which is not for us to determine, the article shines negative light on the organization.

It is fair to remove material that is advertorial & promotional in nature, but it is also fair to remove material that is anti promotional and deceptive in nature.

OK. But if you read the article on (say) PricewaterhouseCoopers there is plenty of "negative press" under "controversies". Or look at any of the other big 4 firms of accountants for example. And in the case of St James' Place the article is not complete without a properly-sourced piece on how the company was "misleading clients" (as documented in the Which? investigation). Dormskirk (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

PwC is an arbitrary example. I would estimate there is an extremely minimal amount of mid-major organizations that do not have a section covering every detail or negative company activity. Neutral does not necessarily mean balancing positive and negative press information to equal neutral. I determine it as to not promote or demote any material as it stands. St. James's Place's Wikipedia is not robust, so with PwC, who has every single detail of company history on their Wiki page, it is fairly reasonable to contain information on their controversies, barring those controversies existed in the first place.

With St. James's Place, there are (now) only 12 total sentences, to which any material posted that is blatantly positive or blatantly negative, as it is deemed by us, the consumers, stands out insurmountably, thus taking away the standard of neutrality. Tell me about where the idea of only editing pages to include negative-press material on the page stems from in the first place.

I cannot tell you where "this idea of only editing pages to include negative-press material" stems from. If you look back over the article history I started the article myself in 2008. Another editor added the material about misleading clients and in so doing, in my view, improved the article. You removed the material; I just added it back in with a better source (Which magazine). Dormskirk (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Middlesbrough[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits on hospitals. I hope you do not mind my pointing out that the correct spelling of the town in the northeast of England is Middlesbrough, whereas Middlesborough, on current spellings, is in Kentucky. :) Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I don't mind at all - I appreciate it. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018[edit]

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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Images of the topic[edit]

Hello. First of all thank you for making necessary fixes and reference filling outs for Troubles-related articles that I've created.

Many of the bombings don't have any available free images on Commons to be used for them (and I am not sure exactly what copyrighted material is allowed). This one for example File:IRA Bishopsgate.JPG is uploaded as fair use. Do you know if there are sources from which I can get fair use images and legally upload them here? I would love to get some images on certain articles here. --Gateshead001 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi - First of all well done on the Baltic Exchange bombing article: it looks good. I am afraid I am not an expert on images but would have my doubts as to whether File:IRA Bishopsgate.JPG should have been uploaded to wikipedia. It it is copyright of Reuters so I cannot see how it can be used but I may be wrong. Apologies that I cannot help more. Dormskirk (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Renaming discussion[edit]

I'd love to get your opinion on this discussion: Talk:Green Park tube station bombing. --Gateshead001 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine - I cannot think of a better one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Royal Free Hospital[edit]

I'm not sure what happened here either, if I removed stuff, I apologise, my only intent was to restore a ref referring to RFH's involvement in the MRR campaign (which I thought was removed by another editor). Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem - it thought it was a mistake. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018[edit]

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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

William O'Leary (British Army officer)[edit]

I'm curious about William O'Leary (British Army officer). You created it today, within a couple of hours of when User:SHiggs121 created Draft:Major General William O'Leary QVRM TD DL V. This can't be just a coincidence. What's going on here? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a coincidence. User:SHiggs121 is clearly new to Wikipedia and was clearly struggling with creating an article on an important new military figure - the head of army reserves in the UK - I decided to step in after the original article was deleted and create the article in a way that complied with wikipedia guidelines. Please read WP:BITE on how experienced editors can help newbies. Dormskirk (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, that's fair. To be honest, my first thoughts were either you were socks, or two paid editors chasing the same fee, but your history made either seem unlikely. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018[edit]

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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Scots Greys[edit]

You've taken this out; Shortly after James II & VII became King in February 1685, a Scottish revolt known as Argyll's Rising broke out in June which was easily crushed. Dunmore succeeded Dalziel as Colonel after his death the same year, with William Livingston, Viscount Kilsyth as Lt-Colonel.

Specifically, which bit are you asking me to provide additional citations? Argyll's Revolt? Dalziel's death? The appointment of Dunmore as Colonel? (which btw is provided in the List of Colonels in this article). Livingston? You've taken the source I provided ffor that and moved it up. How is that adding material which isn't sourced?

And I originally did the edit because it contained a factual inaccuracy ie they were at Killiecrankie; that's been there for some time without apparently requiring 'sourcing.' Would you like me to go through this article and point out all the inaccuracies? I'm only interested in the bit that relates to 1690 but I can.

This is endemic in Wikipedia and it drives me crazy; I've added four additional sources. I've removed at least one factual inaccuracy, clarified others, added new ones (ie Kilsyth being Livingstone's relative) plus explaining some important background on military practices in the late 17th century. Your response is not 'Hey thanks, can you add a source for this?' but to remove it; even now, having essentially deleted stuff that shouldn't need a source ie Argyll's Rising (God knows why), you're still taking about unsourced materials, while using the one I provided further down. How exactly does that help? As a disinterested outsider, what would you suggest is the motive behind that?

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

All I am asking you to to do is to provide in-line references as required by WP:CITE. If you look I have already taken the trouble to find the references for you for (i) Dunmore succeeding Dalziel as Colonel (ii) William Livingston, Viscount Kilsyth as Lt-Colonel and (iii) the bit about Argyll's Rising. This is an assessed article which has achieved "B" on the quality scale. That assessment will be downgraded if you leave material without inline citations. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Canford School references[edit]

Hi Dormskirk,

I notice you have restored a number of potentially unsupported assertions in the article dedicated to 'Canford School'.

More specifically, I refer to the following assertions:

1) "The school itself was founded as a sister school of Eton College with links to Oriel College (King's College, Oxford).[7]"

  • this reference [no. 7] points to a link that no longer exists; nor could i find the information elsewhere on the current, official website of the School. As this information is highly 'reputational', I feel it needs a proper, verifiable reference, which I was unable to find. I therefore suggest we remove this assertion until someone can provide us with evidence.

2) "There exist, however, few continued links between Oriel College and Canford, excepting the presence of some of its fellows on the school's similarly constituted governing body. Upon the school's formation, the school adopted the arms of John of Gaunt in addition to its primary symbol of the Oak tree.[11]"

  • Similarly, this reference [no. 11] alludes to an alleged passage in vol. 3 of Sumption's Hundred Year War, more specifically pages 329-330. I would like to draw attention to the fact that these pages are part of the chapter on England's Barbicans (1377-1378) and thus do not in any ostensible way appear to implicate the history of Canford School.

All in all, I am a worried that we might deal here with instances of self-promotion or, at the very least, poorly-referenced scholarship.

I would therefore be grateful if you looked more closely at this matter.

Thank you,

A Young Canfordian — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungCanfordian (talkcontribs) 20:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi - In view of the doubts I have removed both pieces. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018[edit]

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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open[edit]

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. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Updating the Aviva page[edit]

Hello,

You have been so helpful updating the Aviva page in the past, I wonder if I call on your expertise please?

The Aviva Wikipedia page is looking really out of date (referencing old sponsorship deals, CEOs etc) and could do with a tidy up.

I don't want to break any rules about this so wonder if there is any guidance you can off please on where to start? I am definitely not trying to rewrite this as a marketing exercise, I just want the post to flow better and be easier to read.

Should I redraft and suggest in one big chunk or would it be better to make incremental suggestions?

Thanks so much --HayleySandford (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hayley - I don't think there is a right way to do this. That said I would not recommend deleting material unless there is a very good reason for so doing i.e. it's just wrong. I am happy to help if you want to propose some changes. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018[edit]

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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced[edit]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say![edit]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hospital maps[edit]

Hi,

I noticed you recently reverted some of my edits where I removed an old map from a hospital infobox. You said that this was because the old maps were the only ones visible on mobile sites.

However I am slightly confused because I can see the new dynamic mapframe maps on both the mobile version of Wikipedia and the iPad version, as well as desktop.

Perhaps I did not understand your original point, could you please explain further?

Thanks

86.154.159.212 (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if the issue is just with certain types of mobile phone but certainly on my mobile phone (which uses android) I cannot see the dynamic map. The broader issue is that if there is a consensus to remove the older maps then this is probably best done with a bot as there are many hundreds of articles with the older maps to tackle across the UK alone. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to add to this I have just checked using an Android phone and the new dynamic maps are absolutely visible. ClippednPinned (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just my phone but I have just rechecked Royal London Hospital and I still cannot see the dynamic map. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018[edit]

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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

WP matter[edit]

Hi Dormskirk we haven't collaborated for a while but I hope your well anyway? I need some advice from you on an important WP matter but would rather I communicated with you privately. I can be contacted via email on my userpage its big ask and I wouldn't request it unless I valued you input. Please let me know if you can do? best regards Nav.--Navops47 (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Updating 3i’s portfolio companies[edit]

Hi, my name is Imogen Harvey, I work in the Communications team at 3i Group plc. I noticed that in the past you’ve made a few edits to update information related to 3i’s portfolio investments.

I was wondering if you would be able to make some factual edits to the list of current investments on the 3i Group Wikipedia page. In accordance with Wikipedia’s COI guidelines, I’m conflicted from making these edits directly.

Please can you remove Agent Provocateur, Element Material Technologies[1], Foster and Partners[2] and Mémora Servicios Funerarias[3] from the list of current investments? 3i Group plc is no longer invested in these companies[4].

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to get in touch here or on my talk page.

Best, Imogenharvey3i Imogenharvey3i (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Bloomberg - Element". Bloomberg - Element.
  2. ^ "Foster and Partners - Telegraph". Foster and Partners - Telegraph.
  3. ^ "Alt Assets - Memora". Alt Assets - Memora.
  4. ^ "3i Group portfolio". 3i Group portfolio.
Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed[edit]

Hi Dormskirk I have been creating articles on Royal Navy stations based upon Navy List sources under Flag officers in Commission which are presented in a tabular format thus

Stations Flagships or ships borne in Flag Officers commanding Appointed/Assumed command Chief of Staff etc Secretaries
Nore Pembroke Admiral, Name, Commander-in-Chief 27 April 1946 Commodore, Name Captain, Name

My primary guidance has been the following articles Records of Stations and Fleets and the description here which states the following During the Second World War the Royal Navy was deployed around the world, divided into various fleets and operating from a number of regional stations, also known as commands. The most significant were:

  • the Home Fleet based at various stations in the UK
  • the Mediterranean Fleet based in Alexandria, Egypt
  • the Eastern Fleet based at both the East Indies Station and China Station
  • the Pacific Fleet based in Sydney, Australia (this fleet was not formed until November 1944)
  • the South Atlantic and Africa Station
  • the America and West Indies Station
  • the Western Approaches Station (base for ships deployed in the Battle of the Atlantic)

These stations and the various other operational headquarters and units of the Royal Navy kept records, sometimes in the form of daily diaries or summaries of events.

One of my web based secondary sources has been they way User:Simon Harley one of the creators of the dreadnoughtproject.org a reliable secondary source there they list the stations first the same as the Navy Lists see here Plymouth Station then he lists the various Commander-in-Chiefs and when you click on a C-in-C you get their official title e.g. Admiral, Name, Commander in Chief, Plymouth Station. Now when I have been creating these articles I have made it clear that it is a Naval station a geographic command that is administered and or commanded by e.g. Another editor keeps insisting and moving articles to say I have to just list the Flag Officer nothing else my view is why then do we have previous navy lists and the national archives specifically detailing the structure of the Royal Navy consisting of geographic naval stations or fleets an example I created Iceland (C) station sourced and cited and added a naval station of the British Royal Navy that was administered by the Flag Officer Commanding, Iceland (C) the other editor moved the page and removed any reference of naval station to Flag Officer Commanding, Iceland (C).They have removed categories for example Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches edit summary given not a station well clearly the National Archives seems to think so. Moved Cape of Good Hope and Africa Station to Commander-in-Chief, Africa and removed category royal navy stations comment not a station again the national archives Admiralty: Africa Station seems to think it is. In addition if I have added category Admiralty to the naval station per how the NA categorizes stations they are removed as not Admiralty an operational formation. Now I see no big issue in creating station articles like we have already have for China Station, East Indies Station and actually using the term station is consistent with official sources and consistent for readers. I am now at the point where I am not going to create any more pages because they only get moved. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Because this is driving me insane a bit I have emailed the both national archives and naval historical branch Portsmouth for clarification many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi - The closest analogy elsewhere that I can think of are hospital articles where an editor has moved a lot of articles about UK hospitals so that they become articles about NHS Trusts. e.g. Darent Valley Hospital got moved to Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust. Personally I think both articles should exist i.e. details about the building should appear in the hospital article and details about the management of that hospital should appear in the NHS Trust article. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
So for example an article about the Naval Station but don't list only reference the Flag Officer commanding linked to a separate article about the appointment e.g. Commander-in-Chief, Naval Station name.--Navops47 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that works. Dormskirk (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay have done what you suggested the appointment/post Flag Officer Commanding, Iceland (C) commanding the Iceland (C) station would you mind giving them both a quick look over to make sure I have not missed anything many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Both articles could do with a few more references. There should be one at least at the end of each paragraph. But otherwise the articles look fine. Dormskirk (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Daniellysons.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Davidcampbell.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Felix Ready.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Georgeerskine.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Walterkirke.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Vondonop.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Rogercwilson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Jamessandilands.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Hastingsanderson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Ivormaxse.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Robertwhigham.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Leslierundle.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Rhaining.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

James Holmes Schoedde:[edit]

(there is a lot of unsourced material here: please read WP:CITE carefully before editing fully sourced articles. thanks.)

This material was sourced, as mentioned as a reference, from a facsimile version of the 1879 edition of Celer et Audax, A Sketch of the Services of the Fifth Battalion, Sixtieth Regiment ( Rifles ) by Major-General Gibbes Rigaud, Late Lieu.-Colonel 60th Royal Rifles. Pages 273 to 277.

Should you wish to verify it please refer to the last pages of : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lt5vCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=celer+et+audax&source=bl&ots=W-CEABZsga&sig=kBZC9I4HvOWFxHnZUTC-VC_0hIc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi55q38g6feAhUQ2qQKHRXXDcI4ChDoATAGegQIABAB#v=onepage&q=celer%20et%20audax&f=false

Richard Tennant (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Richard TennantRichard Tennant (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good Source. Why don't you use in line citations then as required by WP:CITE? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
I have now added the citations for you. I assume that all the new material was from the same source. Dormskirk (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Need your help on this AfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire

Is it notable or unecessary? Should be be deleted?

Sammartinlai (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.Sammartinlai (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts on List of British Army Regiments (1800)[edit]

Hello,

Is List of British Army Regiments (1800) worthy of an entry? Or should it go to AfD? Thoughts?

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I tend to take a pretty tough view on verifiability. If it is not properly sourced, it should be deleted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so I'll try an AfD on this? Sammartinlai (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and let's see what happens. Dormskirk (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ferguson PLC[edit]

Dear Dormskirk,

I’m getting in touch because of your interest in FTSE 100 entries, and your past work on this entry.

My name is Marshall Manson, and I work for communications advisory firm Brunswick. I’m acting today on behalf of Ferguson PLC, a FTSE 100 company. As you’ll see on my profile page, I’m a big fan of Wikipedia and a also signatory of the commitment from comms firms like ours not to edit Wikipedia. (I also apologise in advance for any errors in syntax in the material that follows. Because I don't edit, I confess that some aspects of Wiki markdown remain a mystery.)

I was hoping you might be willing to consider and perhaps address some factual issues that we’ve noticed in the Ferguson entry. I’ve listen them here, and included citations in case that’s helpful.

1. Due to a number of divestitures, the opening descriptor of Ferguson as ‘a Jersey-registered multinational building materials distribution company with its head office in Zug, Switzerland’ is no longer accurate. It’s more accurate to say that ‘Ferguson plc is a Jersey-registered multinational plumbing and heating products distributor with its head office in Zug, Switzerland.’

These stories confirm the sale of the building materials components of the business: Sale of Build Center. Sale of French business. Sale of Nordics business. And the FT uses the descriptor we’ve suggested in its article here.

2. In the second para, the first sentence is no longer accurate, as the Pipe Centre and Plumb & Parts Centre brands have been scrapped. We suggest this bit of copy instead:

‘Ferguson PLC has trading brands including: Ferguson Enterprises (in the US), Wolseley (in the UK and Canada) and William Wilson (also in the UK). The company announced a rebranding of its Pipe and Climate Centre and Plumb & Parts Centre in the UK brands as Wolseley in 2016 which is now complete.’

These two articles verify the changes.

3. In the third para, the second sentence about the name change isn’t correct as it stands. We suggest changing that sentence to read has follows:

‘Wolseley plc changed its name to Ferguson plc in 2017 the primacy of its US operations. The Company remains listed on the London Stock Exchange, registered in Jersey, and tax-resident in Zug, Switzerland. The company continues to trade as Wolseley in the UK and Canada.’

You can find an FT article detailing the name change here.

4. The number of employees and countries that Ferguson covers is inaccurate. We suggest that instead 47,000 employees and 25 countries, the correct figures are now ’35,000 employees in three regions’.

I’m afraid there’s no good third-party citation for this, but this is from the company’s own information, and you can see the figures here.

5. In the Operations section, the sub-section explaining Ferguson’s geographic structure is no longer accurate. We suggest that these three descriptors would be more accurate:

  • UK (trading as Wolseley UK)
  • US (trading as Ferguson Enterprises) including Puerto Rico, Mexico and the Caribbean
  • Canada (trading as Wolseley Canada) and Central Europe (trading as Wasco in the Netherlands)

Again, we lack a good third-party citation for this, but it is detailed here and in the company’s annual report. And this Times story confirms the structure.

6. In the same section, the list of countries where Ferguson operates is out of date. We suggest simply eliminating the list. The three points above cover the same ground in our view.

7. The next section, ‘Wolseley UK’ detailing operations in the UK is also a bit out of date. Some of the brands in the list have been scrapped and the overall approach simplified. So we suggest renaming the section ‘UK’ and replacing the current list with the following copy:

‘In the UK, Ferguson trades as Wolseley and is based in Leamington Spa in Warwickshire. Following a restructuring of the UK business announced in 2016, which resulted in most of the UK trading brands being renamed and brought under the single ‘Wolseley’ brand, the company now trades in the UK only as Wolseley, soak.com and William Wilson. Soak.com, formerly known as Bath Empire, is a UK online bathroom retailer, headquartered in Nuneaton, UK. William Wilson is supplier of plumbing, heating and bathroom products in Scotland.’

Sources for this section include this Guardian story, this FT report, and this article from a trade publication.

8. The next section, ‘Wolseley US’ is also inaccurate. There has never been a ‘Wolseley US’ business. We suggest changing the section name to simply ‘U.S.’ or US Operations and changing the copy to read 'Ferguson plc operates in the US as Ferguson Enterprises.’

9. Similarly, the next section, ‘Wolseley Canada’ would more accurately be called ‘Canada and Central Europe’ with the following copy: ‘Ferguson plc operates in Canada as Wolseley Canada, where it is organised into the following businesses: Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (HVAC/R), Waterworks and Industrial (Pipe, Valves and Fittings).’

This Times story (mentioned earlier) confirms Ferguson’s structure.

10. Regarding the section headed ‘DT Group,’ Ferguson has sold Stark Group, previously DT Group, so we suggest deleting this section. This FT article covers the sale of Stark Group. And this Wikipedia entry the renaming of DT Group to Stark Group.

I very much appreciate your considering this request. I hope it comes across clearly that we offer these only as suggestions in the spirit of making the entry more accurate and, in one or two cases, a bit clearer. Obviously, please let me know if you have any questions.Tmmanson (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

All done. I think. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything. Dormskirk (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Many, many thanks. Tmmanson (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Defence Council UK[edit]

Hello,

Can you help me fix the table here on Defence Council of the United Kingdom.

Using this latest update https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about/our-governance.

I can't seem to get the alignment right.

Many Thanks.

Sammartinlai (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done, I think. Dormskirk (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Made some edits, still not familiar with tables.Sammartinlai (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Dormskirk (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank You.Sammartinlai (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Army Sergeant Major[edit]

See my section in the Talk Page of British Army. You are right and wrong to revert but no harm done.

Sammartinlai (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, see my follow up post on that subject, addressed to both of you. - wolf 12:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Seen. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

British Army[edit]

But, the actual reason I came here was to ask you, Dormskirk, another question about that same section of the infobox, "Commanders". Do you have any idea why an IP user recently removed the ranks and post-noms of the Commanding Generals and the ASM? His edit summary stated; "Per MOS:INSTITUTIONSMOS:BIO, and MOS:WORDSASWORDS". Is there something in among those WP:links, policy-or-guideline-wise, that states ranks and post-noms are not permitted in military infoboxes? I took an (admittedly quick) look about, but didn't see anything. I then checked the pages for their brothers; Royal Navy and Royal Marines, as well as their 1st cousins (west); Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian Army, and their other 1st cousins (east); Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Royal New Zealand Navy, New Zealand Army and their 2nd cousins; USN, USMC, US Army & USAF and all of them have ranks preceding their Commanders names and post-noms where applicable. So I'm not sure why this guy removed them from the British Army page. Any ideas? (I'm hoping you'll know, otherwise I suppose I'll have to try and ask him... Cheers - wolf 12:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Y

Hi - I believe ranks should be included but do not have a view on whether post-nominals should be included or not. I am not aware of any good reason to remove them once they are there. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback. Seems we're on the same page. Since the rank/post-nom info has been restored, I think I'll just let it be and keep an eye on it. If that IP user, or any user tries to remove it again from that article, or any other article, then I'll pursue it. Take care - wolf 13:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi again Dormskirk, I just have one more quick question, that seems to keep getting lost in all the... noise. Is there any other sources supporting Paton as the new Army Sgt. Maj., other than the twittr post? Thanks - wolf 17:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The new Army Sergeant Major WO1 Paton[edit]

Thanks for finding out he's a LE Captain! That's a great edit.

Have a great weekend.

Sammartinlai (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)