User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Gordon Highlanders Museum

Hello; you removed a paragraph of mine regarding co-operative work done between the GHM and the Aberdeen Modellers Society cited it as non-verified. Verification is simple; would links to a newspaper article be sufficient ? Rgds 204.69.32.200 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine (see WP:CITE) for the guidelines. I have added some references to the article for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

thank you 204.69.32.200 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

Great. And thanks again for all your good work referencing it properly! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Thanks

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

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

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)

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done. It only needed a tiny tweak. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!JessPavarocks (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Hi, that's great thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

I have as you requested, added the references for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

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)

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

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)

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)

Another editor seems to have sorted this for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dalgety

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

It looks good. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed and now done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Of course it does, my thoughts exactly. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

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. 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)

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)

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

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. Would you be happy to make that change? HOgilvy (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Now sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

Very much so - great job! Many thanks and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

P.S. Alternatively, just undo my edit and I won't complain! Eebahgum (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

No problem. Happy to leave Clifford as it is. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Aviation & Carriers)

More your area than mine, but I'd been meaning to cover Flag Officer, Air, Home, for some time, and Colin Mackie (Gulabin)'s data made it possible. Happy if you want to take a look to tweak/improve.. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me: great job! Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Lyons and Algernon

Hello - I have not added any uncited material, whatsoever, to the page for Edmund Lyons or Algernon Lyons. All the information was present in the sources that I added at the bottom, or in the sources already present. Please undo your deletions of the material: I am unable to find the undo function on my device. Where the source is not clear to you, please add a 'citation needed' tag, rather than delete the information, to alert me, and I will add an inline citation. All of the material I added was present in a source at the bottom, so there should not be an objection to its inclusion. Apologies for the misunderstanding. (TrevelyanLittle (talk)) TrevelyanLittle (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If I accidentally deleted any material that I did not incorporate into my new version, please add it again: no deletions were intentional, and the only additions made were intentional. I have noted before that you are a sincere user with a genuine interest in these topics, like me, so I would highly appreciate your undoing of your deletion of my material, which was the result of considerable effort, and all of which was sourced in the sources at the bottom. As I say, do add Cn tags where you think that they are needed. TrevelyanLittle (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi – You are right that the main issue is the lack of in-line citations as required by WP:CITE. But it would be helpful if you could read Wikipedia:Manual of Style as your edits introduced a number of stylistic issues (e.g. a significant number of headings containing short paragraphs with perhaps only one or two sentences in each paragraph). The independent assessment on the Algernon Lyons article would have picked up such issues (see Talk:Algernon Lyons). Adding Cn tags is not the answer as the independent assessment checks, inter alia, for the absence of such tags so adding them after the independent assessment has taken place renders the assessment invalid. I also noted, for example, that in the case of Algernon Lyons, six sentences were cited to Heathcote, p. 159 before your editions but after your edits only three sentences were so cited to that page in that book. It would be really helpful, if in the case of assessed articles, you could add any additions in manageable blocks so any difficulties can be ironed out immediately. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

91st Foot

I have just found a possible ancestor in FindMyPast in The Army List 1798 in the 91st Foot listed as disbanded in 1783. Was there a 91st Foot before this one and if true could it get a mention? You will know the joy of finding WP has an article about something you want to know more about but I've been defrauded! and for the moment I feel a bit let-down. (grin) Eddaido (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I think this is the one you want: 91st Regiment of Foot (Shropshire Volunteers). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I should have read the see also. I have amended the 91st Foot page so now it redirects to 91st Regiment of Foot disambig instead of the Scottish Regiment. Thanks for your help, Eddaido (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I only wrote the article on 91st Regiment of Foot (Shropshire Volunteers) yesterday so it is not surprising that you looked for it and could not find it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ashton House

Hi, I think that your reverting to an earlier, shortened version was definitely an improvement over the version by user "Architectural.History", who added much unsourced text including a long list of letters after the name of Mr Fairclough — it might have been relevant, if appropriately sourced, to note that Mr Fairclough is an "architectural historian and antiques dealer" per the following sentence, but do we really need to know all his qualifications? — or the versions by the IPs or by user "HistoryofArchitecture", which did much the same sort of thing. Indeed, if you had been so bold as to revert all the way back to your version of 21:57, 18 July 2015‎ before any of the other users' edits, I think that would have been very justifiable, as I am not sure that sources 6, 7 and 8 of the current version really help much in verifying the sentence that they relate to. (I am guessing that source 6 is difficult to obtain.)

Incidentally, you may be interested to know (just as a curiosity - I'm not suggesting adding this to the article) that said house appears to be for sale at present and to have been on the market for over a year.

Regards, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for that. I have now reverted to the version of 21:57, 18 July 2015‎. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

1SL Earliest formation and predecessors dates are wrong

Hi hope you are well we have not spoke for a while I wonder if you could take a look at something I have uncovered and left a message for some feed back at Talk:First Sea Lord many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have added a brief comment on the article talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New DE&S positions, Bollom is back

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/610500/20170424-DES-Corporate-Plan-2017-2020-v2.pdf

Can you help with the wiki charts? Simon Lister is now Chief Of Materiel Submarines, now Chief of Materiel (Fleet) and former Air Marshal Bollom is now Chief of Materiel Ships.

Thanks. JessPavarocks (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I have now updated the tables at Defence Equipment and Support. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Puma Energy

Hi Dormskirk, just wondered if you might have a moment to take a look at a few possible updates to Puma Energy – see mark-up here. There's a bit more of a summary in my first message at the top of that page and a clean version on the talk page if you're okay with these proposed changes. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Lord High Admirals found list back to the year 871

Hi your thoughts would be appreciated at Talk:List of Lord High Admirals (United Kingdom).--Navops47 (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind invitation but unfortunately my naval history does not go that far back! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Fyffes - Wikipedia

You have removed my corrections to your incorrect history of this company where you attribute the founding of this establishment to THOMAS Fyffe also to a a fruit dealer named Hudson in 1888. These are historically incorrect. I have pointed out two of my sources, there are others. (https://myancestors.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/edward-wathen-fyffe-1853-1935/) (http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/fyffes-plc-history/). I may not have your gift for writing in prose but I do take pride in my ability to research historical facts. If you would take the trouble to read Fyffes Plc History you will see that I am correct in that it was 1897 when Fyffe merged with Hudson to form Fyffe Hudson & Co. I can find no evidence to suggest that Hudson had links to the Caribbean, it seems to me that it was in fact Edward Fyffe who discovered the banana in the first place although I am open to be corrected on this.

My grandson was about to use your incorrect assertions regarding the forming of the Fyffe co. for some school work. I have had to explain to him that in the words of the current president of the U.S.A. there can be false news. We do not want False news on Wikipedia thank you very much. Please mend your ways and correct the history section of your article to reflect the facts. since well before Moleybong

Hi - I am intrigued by your comments. You have taken your facts from a couple of websites whereas the the original wikipedia text was cited to the official history of the company "Fyffes and the Banana: Musa Sapientum : a Centenary History, 1888-1988". I have changed the text to suit your version of history but am unsure why you think the official history of the company had got this so wrong? Perhaps I need to "mend my ways" as you put it and question all official company histories! Dormskirk (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello I am in my 81st year and can clearly remember first seeingmy first banana in 1947. I have been researching genealogy since before the advent of the computer and have over the yeats researched the Fyffe family. One of the sources that I quoted was in fact the "official2 Fyffe plc site. This is what that site says: Fyffes Plc History Address: 1 Beresford Street Dublin 7 Ireland Telephone: (+353) 1-809-5555 Fax: (+353) 1-872-6609

Website: www.fyffes.com Public Company Incorporated: 1888 as E.W. Fyffe, Son and Co.; 1902 as Charles McCann Limited Employees: 3,595 Sales: EUR 1.69 billion (US$1.79 billion) (1999) Stock Exchanges: London Ticker Symbol: FFY NAIC: 111336 Fruit and Tree Nut Combination Farming

Key Dates: 1888: Edward Fyffe begins commercial imports of bananas to the United Kingdom. 1890: Charles McCann begins apple exports. 1897: but never the ess Fyffe forms Fyffe Hudson & Co. 1901: The company merges with Elder Dempster and Company to form Elders and Fyffes.

Quite apart from that I have researched the Enland and Wales GRO records and the relevant census records, all point to my version being correct. I have not seen A Centenary History, 1888-1988" by Peter Davies but would be very surprised if he made such a basic error. I did not have the benifit of a university education (they were for the few in my day) so do not claim to be able to write to a good standard of English but never the less I would urge you to review the changes,that you made to the text to suit that version of history which I believe to be the truth.

I am sure that we can at least agree that we all want Wikipedia articles to be factual. Thanks for making the changes Moleybong My grandson has come back to me with this web site that may help to convince you that my version of history is correct. Just search for Fyee on it http://www.minchinhamptonlocalhistorygroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Bulletin-25-2008.pdf. If this ndoes convince you you may wish to add it to your article as a citation. Cheers Moleybong.

Hi - I have now ensured the whole article is properly cited. I certainly agree that it was Edward Fyffe rather than Thomas Fyffe that founded the company (Thomas Fyffe was Edward's elder brother). I have introduced the material on McCann further down as the takeover by FII plc did not take place until 1986 and the article should be presented as prose (per WP:PROSE) not as a timeline. I hope this sorts everything. Dormskirk (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated changes on HSBC

Yes, it can be both British and multinational, British means that the company is legally registered, and headquartered, in the UK, and multinational means that it has operations in multiple countries. Your bold changes have now been reverted at least twice, so per WP:BRD you must take it to the talk page of the article and get support for your changes there, before doing it again! - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I am happy to debate the point but thought that I had only changed it once (today). I am happy to be corrected in which case my apologies, but please advise the previous occasions that I made this change. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not how many times it's done per day that matters (other than when reporting to WP:AN3), but how many times it's done in total. Which in this case is at least two, but could be more since I didn't bother to check more than a week back. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. So when was the other occasion within the last week? Dormskirk (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivor Herbert, 1st Baron Treowen

As the main editor of the above page, I'm hoping you may be able to shed some light on a query I have. The third External link, which doesn't work, is intended to support a claim of 17 deaths at Treowen in 1977. That sounds a very high number! Was it a fire? I can't find it on Google, which one might expect, given the number of deaths. Do you have a source/further details? I've also posted this on Treowen's Talkpage. If it is correct, it would certainly merit a, referenced, mention. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry; the 17 deaths is news to me! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism - and now reverted. Best. KJP1 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

BHP

Well there you go! A simple and effective solution to a potentially unpleasant conversation thread. What can I say? Perhaps, "Why didn't I think of that solution?" Well done, and thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Peter Richards (Royal Navy officer)

I have added a photo of his actual grave at St Andrews to Wiki Commons. User:AndyScott (User talk:AndyScott) 19:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice work...

...on Winchester Castle! Good to see it being fleshed out and improved. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

47 Regiment Royal Artillery under JHC not 1 ISTAR Brigade

Can you help correct the wiki links.

see http://www.army.mod.uk/artillery/regiments/24676.aspx .Thanks

Holland85 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I mean edit the 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade something wrong on my end. Thanks.Holland85 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I have now removed 47 Regiment from the 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade article. Dormskirk (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

69th (South Lincolnshire) Regiment of Foot

Moin Dormskirk,
I am trying to find out a little detail, as ever so often. In 1854 there was a gap of three months in the list of governors of Trinidad and Tobago. There was an acting governor who in all lists I found is listed as "L. Bourchier". I want to find out the first name. I have a little literature at home but before I go through all of it - do you have means to easily find out that first name? Squeezing Google resulted in the information that "L. Bourchier" was probably a member of the 69th (South Lincolnshire) Regiment of Foot in 1854, in the rank of a major.
Thanks for any hints, and kind regards, Grueslayer 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I think it was Major Legendre Charles Bourchier of the 69th Foot (see London Gazette). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Dormskirk! And kind regards, Grueslayer 02:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi can you help with these references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate

Dates have errors. I can't figure out what, can you help. Thanks alot.

IDA28 (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Now sorted. Dormskirk (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

John French, 1st Earl of Ypres

My edit did include a link to the French (tunic) article, where the origin of the Russian word френч is also mentioned. I have now included as citation a link to the online definition of the word френч in a major Russian dictionary, the Большой толковый словарь. Even if you don't read the language, note the birth and death dates 1852 - 1925 are mentioned there.

An English language citation might be preferable, however the common term "French" brings up too many false positive hits.

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I have formatted the citation. Let's see what other editors make of it. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Lloyds Banking Group

Hi Dormskirk, you edited Lloyds Banking Group on 9 April 2017 to update the financial results from the 2016 annual report. Someone has recently changed your revenue figure (see here). I followed it up and the new figure seemed to be correct. You are normally a reliable source, so there must be some difference of interpretation of "revenue". I thought I would point this out because you might want to do something about it. Wildfowl (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. See "Total Income" in Consolidated income statement on page 179 for £39.611 billion; £17.5 billion is not mentioned in the Consolidated income statement. Personally I think we should always work from the official Consolidated income statement rather than any management interpretation of the figures. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great work expanding Fulham House from a stub to a proper article. Edwardx (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Spooks

Hi, thanks for your input on some of the spooks articles that I have also been working on. It is refreshing to find someone who values high quality prose! I have a question about Ayios Nikolaos Station, particularly how you are titling it in other articles. Basically, is officially known by the GCHQ moniker? Best regards. Kfz-Technik Deutsch-Techniker (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for this: I am not sure whether it is officially known by that moniker but see this for example. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Tate and lyle.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tate and lyle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Guanaco 02:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Leicestershire Yeomanry uniforms

Hello Dormskirk. I propose to restore the section relating to the Leicestershire Yeomanry uniforms post 1914 that you have deleted, with a source reference added. This would be the extraordinarily detailed website on the subject maintained by the Leicestershire Yeomanry Association. Whether this material is "needed" or not is of course a matter of personal interest and preference but I hope that you will let it remain. Buistr (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi - Yes, no problem. I mainly deleted it because it was unsourced. While it may not be entirely necessary I agree that it would certainly be useful. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of information on Dixons Retail

You removed some information on this article claiming "unreliable sources".

However, you removed further information in this edit with no such claim, simply saying "and more". I see no reason why this was entirely removed, as at least some of the information was backed by an apparently reliable source.

86.17.224.172 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I was a bit over-zealous with the bits I removed. Apologies. Dormskirk (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dando Drilling for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dando Drilling 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/Dando Drilling 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. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me for it to be deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When to include litigation?

When is it proper to include litigation in a Wikipedia article? What if the litigation has obviously been concluded because of the time that has passed but you can't find anything about the verdict? Thanks. Superkatlover (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi - The main criteria for inclusion of any information is notability (see Wikipedia:Notability). If the litigation has been reported on in the media it may well be notable. Likewise you would expect to see something in the media on the outcome of any notable litigation. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Greene King

Thanks for cleaning up the History section. 86.131.174.108 (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Dormskirk. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of Publicly Licensed Material on WikiPedia / Copy n Paste

Hi you keep deleting material I have added as an update to 77th Brigade (United Kingdom) -- Firstly; I checked that this was acceptable under the terms cited here Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources Secondly; Much of the original structure text, which I am merely updating, was also copied from the earlier 77 Mod.uk website and Lastly; The Open Government Licence explicity encourages the re-use of text published under its terms. PEZUK (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I note that an administrator has already changed the visibility of your previous postings. Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of cut and paste material (OGL or not). You are likely to get yourself blocked as you have pasted this material three times now. Dormskirk (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dormskirk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Author

Hi Dormskirk, First off my apologies I should've come here first instead of reverting you so apologies for that,
I've unfortunately come across many IPs that have mass-spammed this author everywhere - Some edits I believe were done in good faith however the majority were from these IPs so we can't take the chance of allowing these on the site as these IPs could be the author himself,
Thanks for kindly replacing those with better sources that's very much appreciated!,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Allenby

The paragraph that you deleted as unsourced is also from Encyclopaedia Britanica. Would it be OK if I put it back with the same reference as the second paragraph? The section removed is: His appointment in 1919 as High Commisioner of Egypt came as the country was beginning to reject British rule. It had been under Martial Law since 1914 and several of their leaders, including Saad Zaghlul, had been exiled to Malta.

− These deportations had led to demonstrations across the country, with Cairo isolated. Allenby’s first response was conciliatory. He persuaded the Colonial Office to allow Zaghlul and his delegation, wafd, to travel to France. Their intention was to present the Egyptian case to the Paris Peace Conference but they received no official recognition and returned to Egypt in failure.

Without it the remaining paragraph doesn’t make as much sense. Padres Hana (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, fine. The point is that all paragraphs should be sourced. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wesley

Glad you liked this! I learned something from your last edit there. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Dormskirk (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you help the article about King Edward VIII

Good afternoon, Dormskirk.

You were helpful on another UK article that I have been editing. This one about the King (Duke of Windsor) needs independent input. (I have not found that the Feedback service attracts many on topics such as this.)

The issue is: To what extent should the article cover Edward's involvement with the Third Reich? I had added quite a bit of content about this, fully cited: major news media, history book, a royal biographer, etc. But one user has routinely deleted that content and I cannot get others to get involved, in spite of requests on the Talk page. (Part of the problem is that I may have over-complicated the issue with my Talk items, #49 and #50, by quoting content that had been deleted. Many Users might find this too complicated, as a result.)

Example: Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate the Duke of Windsor as king in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain. Ziegler, p. 392 Documents recovered from the Germans in 1945 at Schloss Marburg, and later called the Windsor File http://www.independent.co.uk/news/duke-who-just-could-not-be-beastly-to-the-nazis-1312860.html or the Marburg file,https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/19/the-princes-at-war-deborah-cadbury-17-carnations-andrew-morton-review-duke-duchess-windsor included telegrams confirming plans, principally by Walter Schellenberg, https://books.google.ca/books?id=voMcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&dq=operation+willi+duke+of+windsor+reinstate+him+as+king&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ_L2wkZnYAhWqslQKHf-_AAQQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=operation%20willi%20duke%20of%20windsor%20reinstate%20him%20as%20king&f=false, p. 60 to persuade the Duke to leave Portugal and return to Spain, kidnapping him if necessary. The plan, code named Operation Willi, was never concluded. Bloch, pp. 86, 102; Ziegler, pp. 430–432

Thanks for considering this request. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is well-written already, which is not surprising given that it is a featured article. I note that Operation Willi is already to referred to as is Lord Caldecote's assessment of him. You need to avoid the article becoming a series of opinions about him rather than a scholarly biography. Dormskirk (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Dormskirk. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,108 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your continuing hard work on History of the Royal Navy. Anytime you want to start on the Marine Nationale, I have a book to send you.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries!! Keep up the hard work!! Milhisters do not tend to show too much recognition for each others' work, so when you spot some good work (that is, including *references*), hand them out yourself!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars

Hi Dormskirk. You made this edit to Royal Gloucestershire Hussars. Are you particular wedded to having that information in the article? I want to remove it for a number of reasons...

• The single sentence stands out a bit, and doesn't flow with the rest of the narrative;
• It begs the question of where the regiment was based throughout its existence, which isn't available anywhere that I know of;
• I don't think it's all that relevant;
• I'm hoping to take the article to FAC, and I'm pretty sure that drillhalls.org will be rejected as a reliable source.

Factotem (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I think it is useful in these regimental history articles to explain where the regiment was based. However, in this case, the drill hall was demolished in 1934 so I agree that it does beg the question as to where the regiment went after that. I would have thought that, as drillhalls.org cites Kelly 1914, it should be a reasonably reliable source. But it would be good to get the article to FAC and you are well on the way to doing that so feel free to remove the sentence if helps with that worthy objective. Thanks for raising it with me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, for a website to be regarded as FAC-level reliable, it needs to have some level of reputable oversight and peer review, and/or itself be cited in reliable sources. I'll think on this further, and see if there is any way the information can be reintroduced, but for now will remove it. Thanks for understanding. Factotem (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem and good luck getting the article to FAC-level. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10