User talk:RockDrummerQ

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

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Gaarmyvet. I wanted to let you know that I undid recent contribution because it didn't appear constructive. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it wasn't particularly important, I just thought it looked tidier. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Songs of Faith and Devotion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, RockDrummerQ. 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)

Recent edits[edit]

Hello, please could you explain your recent edits: ie strategic being added to result of a victory in infobox? I have reverted a number of your edits. Shire Lord (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, which infobox are you referring to? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
These two: Battle of Germantown and Battle of Quebec (1775) but I will check others you have done too. Shire Lord (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in replying, I had gone to sleep. I'll address each point in turn (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
In regards to the Battle of Germantown; the battle was indeed a tactical victory for the British. They had forced the American army into a long retreat, and held the field. They prevented Washington's plan coming to fruition. In regards to limited strategic gains for the British, the source that I backed that up with stated that, had Washington's army won, the defeat likely would have been too much for the British government, having so recently lost an army at Saratoga. Thus, this enabled the British to continue fighting; hence the short-term strategic gains. In regards to the long-term strategic gains for the Americans, it was the battles effect upon the French, as well as the British failure to follow up on their success. The British could easily have pursued and destroyed the American army, yet did not. This enabled Washington's army to remain intact, leading to their retraining at Valley Forge, where they emerged as a much stronger, cohesive fighting unit than before. The battle had considerable effects upon the French Court; as they were more impressed by the ability of the Americans, after suffering a string of setbacks, to launch such a daring and bold attack. This, in turn, led to greater French involvement. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
In regards to the Battle of Quebec - the American attempt to capture the city had failed. Had the city been captured, it likely would have greatly upset British strategic efforts, as the British used Canada as a base of operations for launching assaults into American territory. While it did not repulse the invasion entirely (thus, it is not decisive), it is strategic in the sense the American army did not capture the city, and bought the British enough time for reinforcements to swell the garrison, eventually compelling the Americans to withdraw. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
This is all very well, but in order to change certain facts you must put this in the talk page or even use a source to state that it was a strategic victory. Using terms like 'had Washington won' is Counterfactual history. Regards Shire Lord (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I had used sources, as both claims in the infobox were referenced. I will present it on the talk page and see what a discussion would think. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

Reference errors on 8 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)