User talk:Navops47/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contents

Please comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Chinese stock market crash. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Klondike Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Lee. 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) 10:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fred Perry records

Hi, FYI a number of all-time records have been removed from the Fred Perry article. Seems these were added by you way back in 2014. Just curious if you can recall what the source of these records was as they do not seem to match the info in the wiki articles on the Grand Slam tournaments Perry played.--Wolbo (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Noted Off-topic btw the way there is a discussion about the ATP world tour records article have not seen further input from you?--Navops47 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kuru Kingdom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Another unsourced change of dates at Kalinga (India). It looks like you have made a habit out of this! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. [User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on using Western sources

Would you really be happy about someone saying Indian sources shouldn't be used for something not Indian? Or a statement that sources by 'black writers' shouldn't be used for something dealing with 'whites'? It's a terrible argument even though I understand where it comes from. In any case you must be aware of the arguments between Indian historians, it's not as though they all agree anyway. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corporal punishment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corporal punishment. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canadian Open (tennis), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Wallace. 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) 10:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Hard Court Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Knight. 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) 11:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Player statistics

Hi, noticed you added W/L records of several players like Joshua Pim, Pancho Gonzales and Laurence Doherty. Can you tell me what the source is of this info? --Wolbo (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited All-time tennis records – men's singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Parke. 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) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dewar Cup Stalybridge

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Dewar Cup Stalybridge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If the Dewar Cup is not notable enough for it's own article, why is this?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The Dewar Cup series of tournaments were all part of a series of events leading to the Dewar Cup finals and are mentioned in the following articles: 1972 Grand Prix (tennis), 1973 Grand Prix (tennis), 1974 Grand Prix (tennis), 1975 Grand Prix (tennis), 1971 Women's Tennis Circuit, 1972 Women's Tennis Circuit, 1973 WTA Tour, 1974 WTA Tour, 1975 WTA Tour all these articles are classed as high imporatnce by the tennis project of which I am a member. References to the tournaments are also found in the following artciles: Lew Hoad, Virginia Wade, Ann Jones , Edinburgh Cup and so on thats why it was created it is part of a larger series of tennis tournamnets similar to the US Open Series today.--Navops47 (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alliance of Patriots of Georgia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alliance of Patriots of Georgia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corina Abraham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corina Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

All-time tennis records – men's singles

Hi, thanks for your addition, but what exactly do you mean by cumulative? Apparently it's not total weeks and also not consecutive weeks (as at least 5 players have more than 178 weeks in the top 2 consecutively, but are not listed in your "cumulative top 2" table). Maybe weeks at #2? That makes sense for Nadal. Gap9551 (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gap thanks for your input http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cumulative so am saying total when all weeks at a particular rank are added up over the course of a career. Consecutive weeks spent continuously at a particular rank before there is a break those tables have now been added.--Navops47 (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Gap sorry about that I was misreading information I will ammend the tables in my sandbox accordingly--Navops47 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What the heck was the consecutive weeks at #1 table that was added for a brief while? There are no weekly totals until 1973 so that would have been original research. Everything was done on a yearly basis only until then. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

Why not in Roger Federer of Rafa Nadal original research? Why only Djokovic? I added ref. [1]!--Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Have replied on your talk page.--Navops47 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (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)

Please comment on Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

All-time tennis records – women's singles - weekly rankings

When you created the All-time tennis records – women's singles and added the section on rankings, it looks like you added 364 weeks for Helen Wills and 332 for Suzanne Lenglen and 325 for Margaret Court. There is nothing for those three under consecutive weeks. I'm wondering how you arrived at those totals, and if simply adding the years up why you wouldn't have added it to the consecutive totals also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC) wee

The stats came the sports now & then website by a writer called J. A. Allen here: http://sportsthenandnow.com/2011/02/27/whos-no-1-16-women-in-tennis-who-held-the-top-spot-longest/ I just forgot to add a citations will do it tomorrow.--Navops47 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Have cited them now my apology Lenglen was in the wrong position I need new glasses :)--Navops47 (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at tennis talk

I don't blame you one bit if you want to stay long clear of this... but in case you're a wacko like me please help out in tweaking the guidelines at "Can we reach a compromise on No. column addition?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Have been observing but avoiding the minefield will take a look.--Navops47 (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to The Board of Admiralty. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay Zack understood am not the most technically gifted of people.--Navops47 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Vice-Admirals of the coasts

Hello,

I don't see how that Navy List of 1814 proves that these are properly titled "Vice-Admirals of the coast of X" rather than "Vice-Admiral of X". They're under a heading that says "Vice-Admirals of the Coast of Great Britain", but that doesn't mean that has to be inserted in their title, any more than the Lord High Admiral is the "Lord High Admiral of the High Court of Admiralty" because under that heading. "Vice-Admiral of X", or more rarely, "Vice-Admiral of the county of X" is overwhelmingly more common, in my experience, and should be the title per WP:COMMONNAME.

Furthermore, the responsibilities of the vice-admirals of the coasts seem to have been purely administrative and judicial: they did not have command of a "naval fleet" as the infobox now says, and calling the counties "Naval Districts" stretches the term to the breaking point, IMO. I think it would be better to return to the shorter name and remove the infoboxes, but I wanted to consult with you first before doing anything dramatic. Choess (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to piece together the organisation of the admiralty in the 17th and 18th centuries and all navy lists I have from 1814 to the 19th century do indeed list them with the Judicial Department however my other book sources from Cambridge UP, Oxford UP not only list them under the Judicial Dept of the Admiralty but they were also responsible for the defence of their coast line as well as acting as admiralty judge's and authorised to commandeer any available ships/forces within their naval districts the navy lists (official UK government source) for RN (all the one's I have 1814 to 1945) and covering the period in question as you know do not refer to them under the title of Admirals of the County of name either it's Admirals of the Coast of England, Admirals of the Coast of England Great Britain, Admirals of the Coast of England Great Britain & Ireland then County so I suggest it's Admiral of the coast_name of county the VADM responsible for their stretch of coast line within the entire British and Irish coast lines. I am also collecting additional sources materials to add to my point when I google e.g. Vice Admiral of the coast of Cheshire, Lancashire etc I find other book sources to match the title search in regards to WP common if you can provide more book sources that indicate more usage of WPcommon name fine change them, however the Navy is responsible for coast lines, sea's and oceans they do not have installations, dockyards, naval bases, naval yards, construction facilities and or fleets covering the entire county either that is a land command and is the responsibility of the Army and Airforce so the other title covering the entire county is not correct either as your inferring. The infoboxes should be changed after further research has settled the debate but they should remain as they were command/operational appointments recommended by the board of Admiralty and appointed through the First Naval Lord, Admiral of Fleet, CIC, (senior naval board member) the Admiralty at this time was purely responsible for the operational staffing and activities of the Navy not the Administration of the Navy that was the Navy Boards responsibility multiple sources confirm that information, no sources either refer to the Judicial Dept of the admiralty as an independent agency acting outside of the Navy and or Admiralty the infobox is inline with all other RN articles dealing with any type of senior role.--Navops47 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think my point was quite clear regarding their names. I agree with you that they are collectively called Vice-Admirals of the Coast, to disambiguate them from Vice-Admirals by rank, Vice-Admirals of kingdoms, etc. However, I disagree that they are individually called "Vice-Admiral of the coast of X". The source I saw you link, an 1814 Navy List, has a heading that says "Vice-Admirals of the Coast of Great Britain", followed by entries such as "Kent, the Marquess Camden". You are interpreting that to mean that the Marquess of Camden is therefore "Vice-Admiral of the coast of Kent" rather than "Vice-Admiral of Kent". (I am assuming that Navy List is representative of the others you are citing; if not, please correct me.) I disagree with this interpretation. For instance, Sir Sherston Baker reproduces the text of the letters patent appointing a Vice-Admiral of the Coast, which calls the appointee "Our Vice-Admiral, Commissary, and Deputy in the Office of Vice-Admiralty in Our Isle of Wight and Maritime parts thereof and to the same adjoining". "Of the coast" is not part of the official title. Furthermore, "Vice-Admiral of Xshire" is, I would argue, the most recognizable and natural name for the office, sufficiently precise to identify it, and the most concise, so it is the most appropriate title under the provisions of WP:COMMONNAME. For instance, if I do a Google Books search on "Vice-Admiral of Devon", I get 15 unique books; "Vice-Admiral of the County of Devon" gets 6, and "Vice-Admiral of the coast of Devon" gets 2. I came up with 3, 0, and 2 results doing the same for Cheshire. (Incidentally, I didn't "infer" that an official named "Vice-Admiral of Devon" must have jurisdiction over non-maritime affairs in Devon.)
I don't follow your argument about the Board of Admiralty vs the Navy Board. You've stated that the vice-admiralties of the coasts are "command/operational appointments". They aren't; as per the Navy List, they were principally judicial appointments. A power to commandeer ships doesn't make them naval commanders any more than the pre-1882 Lord Lieutenants were Army officers because of their power to raise militias. Lieutenancy counties are not Army commands, and vice-admiralty jurisdictions are not "Naval Districts", as the infobox presently asserts. If you really want an infobox in these articles (to my eye, they're redundant and silly here) you can either prove that what the infobox asserts is true (Vice Admirals of the coasts commanded a fleet and a naval district) or get the infobox fixed so it doesn't say those things. You do not have license to put infoboxes in articles that say things that are not true to be "inline with all other RN articles". Choess (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I misinterpreted what I was reading will change things around.--Navops47 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Updated articles per discussion you will need to move them back to Vice Admiral of Name apologies the info boxes do look better IMO and we do have them on articles with Flag Officers covering similar time periods if its okay I want to keep them when I move the others will bear in mind your comments thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Much appreciated. I can handle the moving, don't worry about it. I'm still not quite sure a military unit infobox was appropriate, but your fixes to the type role make it more accurate, so I won't fuss. I like the series of pages you've created on RN commands. A lot of these administrative divisions are still poorly documented on Wikipedia, and IMO it's useful for readers to be able to understand what their roles and responsibilities were. Let me know if you'd like a hand with copyediting or identifying obscure officeholders--I like to think I'm pretty good at piecing together scraps of online information for that sort of thing. Since you seem to be pretty current with the Navy Lists, do you know if a Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom is still appointed? They seem to have stopped Gazetting appointments to both that and the Vice-Admiralty, making them hard to track. Choess (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
That's really all I am trying to do (and thank you for the offer and will take you up on that) I really want to expand connect a lot of abandoned articles and link them through an article covering aspects of organizational structure by historical periods as that structured information is not there currently you have to try and work that out for yourself bad enough even if your a navy enthusiast not very good for readers passing by e.g. the Admiralty article has an organizational section that's not very clear and confusing in the new article I want to give a decent overview and detailed summary sections e.g 17th century, 18th century and so on then present the lines of responsibilities in tables but I am not very technical in designing them I would appreciate any help you can give there yes the Rear Admiral of United Kingdom from the London Gazette 15th May 2012 ROYAL NAVY Honorary Rear Admiral Sir Donald Gosling KCVO RNR to be Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom from 2nd April 2012 the title still exists to be given by the Queen but this article The Navy Directory/List 2015 has the VADM of UK but not RADM of UK so I think the last holder of the title was back in 2007 HM QE2 has not since re-issued the title since.--Navops47 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution

It appears that you have added material to the article The Board of Admiralty using content from a compatibly licensed UK Government web page. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed pages, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied licensed material before, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and provide attribution. Let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes apologies and noted, was 1st time btw and thanks Dianna.--Navops47 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

New article

Did you mean to put https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creating_User:Navops47/draft/RN_Stations in your userspace? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I did I think my computer glitched or I was not paying attention sufficiently have I created an article by mistake? should I blank it?--Navops47 (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I've moved it back to your userspace (here). Happy editing! :) --QEDK (T C) 06:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for doing that appreciated--Navops47 (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Navops47. 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)

Please comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Cape of Good Hope Station

Hi - Many thanks for your edits to Cape of Good Hope Station. Some of the material is unsourced: please could you insert the references as required by WP:CITE? Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay will action, apology for any delays as I am currently overseas--Navops47 (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have done a good job of it already. I have added a few more citations. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi - You may have already spotted it but the c-in-c Halifax Station is the same thing as Commander-in-Chief, North American Station; also the c-in-c Devonport is the same thing as Commander-in-Chief, Plymouth. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that but there are lot of pre-1900 sources cite that refer to it as c-in-c Devonport, certainly in books from that period I did notice that is mentioned in the introduction. The same with the c-in-c Halifax station, although that's there's no reference to (some times known as the Halifax Station mentioned in North America and West Indies Station. I'm looking into the 1781-1815, North Sea Command I'm finding different sources calling it c-in-c North Sea Fleet, c-in-c, North Sea, and the North Sea Station, but there is no outright common name the sources seem to be in equal in terms of numbers so how do I proceed in naming that article any thoughts? Also what do you know about it?--Navops47 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi - The normal wikipedia convention is to use the most recent name. I hope that helps. Dormskirk (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Violentacrez

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Violentacrez. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:McMaster University Library

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:McMaster University Library. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vajiralongkorn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vajiralongkorn. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carrie Fisher

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carrie Fisher. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

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.