![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
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) 07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Dormskirk
Would you like to glance at the new section "Illegal Activity" in Crest Nicholson - it just seems an anti-immigration rave.
Regards
Bebington
Bebington ( talk) 13:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou I appreciate it! I was going off this page: http://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php - does it matter that it's different? The companies change every day. Is there an official list that includes market cap? Wik idea 20:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, During the course of the editing I've been undertaking on Interserve, I've visited the separate article on one of it's subsidiary companies, RMD Kwikform. It's a poor article, lacking citations and seems to need a lot of work to bring it upto scratch. I think I will see what I can do to improve it, but this will take some time. In the meantime I notice that the section entitled 'Formwork and falsework background note's' reads like a bit of an advert and more than that I'm not sure of its value to the article, as there are separate entries on both Formwork and Falsework which should provide the repository for all information on these construction techniques. I was therefore proposing to delete the entire section as I fail to see its value. I know that we are encouraged to 'be bold', but just wanted to sound you out about it first and this prompts a further question. I've imposed upon you quite a lot over the past few weeks, as I find my feet, so are you happy that I continue to sound things out with you? Best wishes ( Doggoneone ( talk) 12:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC))
Werieth ( talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently,
Assura Group, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's
notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be
merged,
redirected, or
deleted. Please consider adding
reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:
"Assura Group" –
news ·
books ·
scholar ·
JSTOR ·
free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia!
VoxelBot 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
JetBlast ( talk) 21:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell if you edited out a sentence I wrote, or one I let remain, on the Jeffery Amherst page, but you were right about taking it out. Princetoniac ( talk) 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk,
Thanks for helping to update the HSBC article. And would you be interested in helping with the money laundering aspect? My goal is just a variety of good sources, straight down the middle neither understating nor overstating. I mean, nothing fancy, but I do think it's an important topic. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 22:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Will you revert it to my last edit so I can finish the edit I was adding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be finished with my edit in about 10 mins, do me a favour please, the ref is 'Allenby' by Brian Gardner (1965), can you add in the refs as appropriate please as I don't know how to do that bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thx, the Page range is 66-115. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Appreciated ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardrick ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
|
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) 04:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I work for Tullow Oil in their communications department. I recently made some changes to our wikipedia entry. I did this in a fully transparent manner and cited all of my source material. I was dissapointed to see that almost all of my changes have been reverted with the reason being given as source material not being cited.
These changes were made in order to provide some additional context around certain aspects of the entry and also to update some data which was very out of date.
Obviously I would like to be able to update the page without my changes being reverted - as such I would very much appreciate some guidance as to what was wrong with my last update and what I can change in order for my future changes to be considered appropriate.
I know that my last username went against the username policy and hope that this did not influence the decision to undo the amends as I was not aware of the username policy in advance of my last set of amends. I have changed to a new username accordingly.
Thanks, Lindsay
Hi - I have reverted my own changes so you should be able to see the missing cites now. Basically every paragraph should be cited. Examples of paragraphs missing cites at the end in the history section include the second paragraph, third paragraph, fourth paragraph, fifth paragraph, sixth paragraph, seventh paragraph and tenth paragraph. Please can you insert the missing cites as required by WP:SOURCE: otherwise I will have to change it back to the original version. Thank you. Dormskirk ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. So if I were to redo my changes with additional citations then you would be happy with the entry?
I only ask as there was a considerable volume of change and don't want to have to go through all of that again only for the changes to be undone!
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just checked the history and when you say you have reverted your own changes - there seems to have been a 0KB change so not sure it has done what you wanted it to there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Greatly appreciated! I'll try and add in all of the missing references today. Thanks, Lindsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
References added to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 18 as requested. It would be great if you could check over this for me and let me know if you are happy with the changes now or if any further amends are required. Thanks, Lindsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Very much appreciated. LindsayAtTullowOil ( talk) 08:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
|
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) 13:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, thanks for your comments,that logo your messenger mentioned was made or embellished by myself, so I admit it perhaps not 100% accurate, but the BICC logo is from a official website: http://www.bicon-uk.com/about-BICON/ At last please excuse my poor English, Best wishes~
His Dormskirk,
Any chance you might help improve this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_William_Brotherton
Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armywriter127 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dormskirk! I'm curious as to the reasoning behind your reversion of half a dozen of the AWB semi-automated edits that I made yesterday in an attempt to complete the task request WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#KCMG. I'm not emotional about it what-so-ever, just curious as to your reasoning. If there is a valid reason for it, I would like to know before I change any more of the 624 pages on my list to change. Thank you for your time. :) Technical 13 ( talk) 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you help with this page pls? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edward_Peel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonialhistorian49 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the Arthur Denaro article. I need to correct you on something however. The original (closeup) image, also posted by me, will not be deleted. My ownership of the file has been called into question and I am endeavouring to prove the validity of my copyright, which is why I have posted another image from the same series - to show the similar metadata on the image file. When this matter is resolved it's likely I will restore the original closeup image and move the one with Prince Phillip elsewhere in the article - that's if you don't beat me to it. :) SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Feedback - no idea how else to reply to your Bot message |
Dear Wiki person,
I won't say thanks for your message because I have experienced previous such messages where the Wiki police just discard what I - a naval historian - have spent hours on and it's enough to drive one away from Wiki altogether. If the Gestapo were as conscientious as you people then God knows how Germans would have fared in the late 1930s - they might all have committed suicide as life is too short for pedantry of the level Wiki indulge in. You attest, outrageously, that my source is insufficient. The CV of a 78-year-old knighted full admiral, who is the very essence of modesty, is not good enough for you. His CV is in the form of his career as sent to broadsheet obituary writers and directories and, anyway, I know of his later career personally. You cannot expect me to go through editions of The Times so that I can find appointments from the time of his being promoted Commander. His CV is sufficient for his entry in Debrett's and Who's Who and - when due - the broadsheets, yet it is not good enough for Wiki. Just who do you people think you are? Unlike the dead, with perhaps a biography or obituary to draw on, most of the living will have far fewer, if any, published sources to refer to and quote. And I'd wager it is the living that are of far more interest to others living than are dead folk. Wiki BLPs give a chance to read someone's obituary before they are dead, so to speak, and that is something I applaud Wiki for. It is often so annoying to find out important things about an interesting life only after they are dead. Yet if you carry on with pedantic police work then there's no chance. I am furious. I would contest Wiki's assertion that unpublished sources are the least reliable. They are often the most reliable of course! I have written the Life of Brian pretty well but that seems not to matter. I have questioned Sir Brian about some detail so as to ensure accuracy and I await yet another reply from him. I will try to conform, when I have time - and if I can work out how to do so (your conventions are so complicated that most mortals probably give up - there really is not time to read everything. The main reference for the entry will have to be Who's Who but is that good enough for you? It is, after all, based on Sir Brian's own submission to that tome's editor? I would have replied to your message directly but could find no way of so doing - and Wiki does not make doing the simple things easy or clear. Apologies, to some extent, for the tone of this message but you guys sure know how to puncture enthusiasm, to diminish interest and to annoy those who are producing work that is pretty well 100% accurate, regardless of source! Lestermay ( talk) 08:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hansard never ever abbreviates substantive titles. Which is why you will find Lord Mandelson thus (not of Foy) whereas Lord carter of Barnes is always just so. See [1] peers are always listed as their title complete. If you don't understand this you really don't know how particular Hansard is about getting titles correct. Quoting newspapers which have no authority over Hansard which does is not helpful. I have rechecked Hansard and Fisher is listed in that form alone (as it always would be no other Lord Fishers existing). David Beamish, the Clerk to the Houses of Parliament runs his own website which confirms exactly that same form as would be expected. He's not going to be wrong. That many other sources get the title wrong is no more as reason for wiki to join the mistake than it was for us to put 'Princess Diana' as her title simple because many (most?) books and newspapers erroneously used that form. Garlicplanting ( talk) 13:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks again for your help on the G4S article. There are a couple of points I wanted to finalise with you:
Infobox
The revenue, operating income and net income should be updated. I recognise your point about the impact of the Olympics on finances, but figures for 2013 should be provided nonetheless. Where would be the best place for me to find these published by a third-party source?
Operations
You've include a couple of lines from my suggested 'Operations' section on the Talk Page. The information under 'Core Services' and 'Operating Structure' should be in the article despite the fact that information can be found on the company website.
It would be good to hear your thoughts on the above.
Thanks
Vivj2012 (
talk) 14:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. Additional information can be added to the CSR section regarding projects G4S is involved with. I've included the relevant third-party references. Could you review the section below and give me some feedback? I've highlighted existing article content in bold. Thanks
Vivj2012 (
talk) 16:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
CSR
In 2011, G4S became a signatory to the UN Global Compact, the international standard to promote socially responsible business behaviour including human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. G4S is a founder signatory of the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC), a multi-stakeholder initiative convened by the Swiss government.
G4S was also an active participant in the development of the ICoC and the charter for its oversight mechanism. ICOC Advance
In 2012, G4S outlined its key CSR objectives. These included:
In 2013, G4S announced it achieved a 16% reduction in carbon emissions since 2009, largely due to a decrease in energy consumption by employees. Edie Energy
In 2013, G4S launched a landmark Human Rights Policy, co-authored by Dr Hugo Slim, an internationally recognised human rights expert, aiming to align the company’s practises with ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)’ and to introduce additional global guidelines for areas not currently covered by existing standards. Advance Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
In 2011, G4S UK added the world's first fully electric-powered security van to its cash fleet. Click Green In 2012, G4S in the UK was commended for its corporate social responsibility activities by achieving a bronze award by the BITC. It meant that the company demonstrated a clear outline of its mission, values and Corporate Social Responsibility principles, with clear roles and responsibilities being allocated right across its business. IFSEC Global
Sponsorships
In 2007, G4S began the G4S 4teen, an award-winning[39] programme to support 14 young athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds around the world.[40] Mentored by double Olympic champion Haile Gebreselassie, Five athletes reached the London 2012 Olympic Games including Mariana Pajón who won Gold in the BMX for Colombia.
G4S provided financial, social and logistical support to the athletes. Telegraph Online
The athletes included:
G4S has also been one of the main sponsors for the British sailing team. RYA The company was also individual sponsors of 49-ers Stevie Morrison, Ben Rhodes and Nick Dempsey, the UK’s leading windsurfers in the leading up to the Beijing and London Olympic games. Exmouth Journal 24
After reviewing the article, and making a bit of clean-up, I feel that it is ready for a GA review. What do you think? If you agree, I would happily nominate it. buff bills 7701 00:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
If the IP editor who claimed "Wellington never lost a single battle" manages to produce a source, I would suggest it be scrutinised and challenged, rather than accepted without question. My research for the article at Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington identifies at least six defeats; five in the Peninsular War, one in India. Whether he never lost a gun, however, is another question, though I don't see it as a notable point, personally.. losing guns doesn't mean a lot compared with the bigger picture of losing other things during a campaign, and Wiki isn't really the place to "keep score" on how many guns certain commanders lost, as the statistics are going to be far from accurate, in most cases, due to poor records or exaggerated sources, i.e. Napoleon often bloated enemy loses and reduced his own, as a means of propaganda, in his bulletins. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{ chat} 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dormskirk,
This is just a courtesy visit to inform you that I took the liberty to add a slight expansion to your article. I hope you'd like it. I'd appreciate receiving your say on this. Best regards. ( MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk) 17:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC))
The sentence about King William not being comfortable in crowds certainly needed referencing as it was questionable.
On the other hand, deleting this statement was quite unnecessarily nit-picking. Let me put it to you that someone preached at the opening of St Paul's, so who would it have been? And that person preached on a text. And if you were given just one guess, you would be bound to get it right! Here is the deleted statement:
Regardless of whether it is properly referenced, there is far less harm in it staying in the article than there is to your deletion of it. Amandajm ( talk) 14:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
|
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) 00:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, I hope you don't mind this message out of the blue but I've noticed you have a keen interest in the Wikipedia article for Investec. I've reviewed the article and identified a few areas that could be improved and wanted to get your thoughts on this.
Firstly, the page seems to describe “Investec” rather than “Investec Bank”. Investec has three main arms to the business: Specialist Banking, Asset Management and Wealth & Investment (please see Investec's website for more details http://www.investec.co.uk). As the current article describes Investec rather than “Investec Bank”, perhaps we should update the title?
The other thing I wanted to run by you involves a bit more work – the main three arms of Investec (Specialist Banking, Asset Management and Wealth & Investment) have their own history, products and business operations. The three are run as separate businesses in their own right despite being owned by Investec. Do you think we should consider creating separate pages for these companies, that way illustrating the background of each arm and their operations? (For example: Wealth Manager: How Investec has changed the face of wealth management)
I’d be happy to make start on these, but as an editor with CIO - in this case representing Investec, I’ll need your help proofing the new articles. Let me know. Many thanks, Kt1502 ( talk) 11:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
|
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) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I think i've made a bit of a mess in trying to change the name of the page from Capita group to Capita, hopefully you may be able to fix it, i'm only an amateur, thanks Hkong91 ( talk) 23:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for undoing this edit of mine. I used Visual Editor and it did something quite different to my expectation. I've now done it properly with good old Wiki editing. Shem ( talk) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your two reversions at Jack Cohen (businessman), please could you clarify which parts of the information I added is "unsourced material". I had hoped it was clear from the first edit that the information was derived from the article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is already used as a source in the article, but it should have been beyond doubt from my second edit which added numerous citations to that source.
A number of points on your preferred version of the article:
I unaccountably missed out the word "born" when I edited the first sentence of the first section, but otherwise I am at a loss to see how my changes made an "aweful mess". Please could you explain where I have created a mess. If there are other errors - no doubt there are some - then surely they can be corrected without wholesale reversion. -- Ferma ( talk) 17:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dormskirk, and thanks for your input here. Necrothesp's page move, which I agree with, has led me to look into the history of our coverage of the college, and I have tried to make sense of it here. It's rather a sorry tale, so could you possibly keep the page on your watch-list? Regards, Moonraker ( talk) 01:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
NB, In much the same way, LesJ deprived us of the beginnings of an article on Greenwich Hospital. It doesn't seem to have been terribly good one, but it is plainly a notable subject. How do you feel about tackling that? Moonraker ( talk) 03:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | On 21 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Royal Naval College, Greenwich, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Queen Elizabeth II knighted Francis Chichester on the river steps of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Naval College, Greenwich. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you so much for your help HayleySandford ( talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you so much for your help (again!)
HayleySandford (
talk) 14:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
|
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) 05:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
|
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) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I was not made aware that they walked off the site. I reside in Jamaica part time and was associated with a contractor working directly with Bouygeus. All of Phase 1A and most of Phase 1B was completed by the company before being replaced, by the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsolan22 ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, CTF is not Combined Task Force unless it is specifically made clear that it is. CTF is a naval acronym actually for the Commander, Task Force, similarly for CTG Commander Task Group, CTU, CTE, etc. I need to thank you for a whole bunch of your excellent edits, by the way.... Buckshot06 (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Awarded to Dormskirk, as part of AustralianRupert's 2014 New Year Honours List, in recognition of his biography work throughout 2013. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert ( talk) 21:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Dormskirk, thank you for creation this article. I work for this company and it's history it's a kind of hobby horse for me, I put already a lot of effort in searching for details. (I found also some pictures of Paul Hellermann and other pictures of products from 1939 etc., talked to some colleagues working since 38 years in Germany for this company.) So I thought it will be fun collecting the history, with reliable source in Wikipedia. But its rejected the third time. Probably because of my IP address. So If you want, I can send you my sources I found already, and combined with your Wikipedia expertise you can take the right, most reliable sources. There are some sources you divinity know ( finanzen.net: Established in 1930; or wer-zu-wem.de/firma/hellermanntyton Established 1935; insidermedia.com; finanznachrichten.de). And there are some reliable sources, but in German "Was mit Paul Hellermann began...". (what I fond so far: Article in creation HellermannTyton) -- Paul HT ( talk) 10:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
... and how can a source be added like http://www.unquote.com/unquote/official-record/2296975/doughty-sells-part-of-hellermanntyton-stake? If you search for doughty-sells-part-of-hellermanntyton-stake , the source is accessible, if you click on the link, it does not work. Is this a reliable source? -- Paul HT ( talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, the article of HellermannTyton, I have worked on, is finally submitted, with some minor change requests (History should be rewritten in pros, not in a timeline). I will call my cousin, she lives in Exeter, UK since few year, she will transform the text passage easily into proper English. So if you think it’s a good idea to merge the articles, just take text passages or merge your text into the Article in creation. I would be happy if my time wasn’t spend for nothing. -- Paul HT ( talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 13:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk,
Thank you for pointing out the issues with my edit to Chris Brink’s page. I have expanded it slightly, and would appreciate your review and comments on the draft. Many thanks. Lifeupontyne ( talk) 23:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Mitchell 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/Roger Mitchell 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. nonsense ferret 15:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 23:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk,
I work within the Communications team at 3i Group and we have noticed that there are a few out of date statistics within the Wikipedia page. Please would you be able to help with updating some of these factual notes?
I have included the updated information below for the year ended 31 March 2013 along with some links from third party websites which can be cited against these. 1. The AUM figure for the ye 31 March 2013 is GBP12.9 billion, as per: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130516-701200.html 2. The net income (or total return) is £373 million, as per: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130516-701200.html 3. The operating income (or net portfolio return) is £432 million, as per: http://www.investegate.co.uk/3i-group-plc--iii-/rns/results-for-the-year-to-31-march-2013/201305160700128398E/ 4. The number of employees is now 271, as per: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=III.L 5. 3i bought the remainder 50% of Scandlines from Allianz Capital in November 2013, as per: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d61b6dec-1bb3-11e3-94a3-00144feab7de.html
Please do let me know should you need any further information. Many thanks for your help in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latshah ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help Dormskirk.
I note that you have chosen to include the 'Profit for the year' metric as the net income figure. The Private Equity industry generally tends to use the total return figure as the chosen metric for net income, which appears as 'Total comprehensive income for the year' within the Statement of comprehensive income. This would be £373m for 3i Group for the year ended 31 March 2013. Would you consider amending this to reflect the industry standard?
Thanks again, Latika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latshah ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly does, thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.113.245 ( talk) 15:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
That quote needs a citation (inline) with page number if it is to stay in the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 12:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I may have undone some of your edits as a revision preceding your revisions had reverted the page back and gone unnoticed. – Rob ( talk | contribs) 01:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 14:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi- the thing is that the point you make is incorrectly worded. You say that if the Royal Horse Artillery parade with its guns (the artillery's equivalent of a regiments colours), it will rank higher in the order of precedence than even the Household Cavalry. But this is not true it is only when the Household Cavalry don't have its colours on display that the Royal Horse Artillery has a higher order in precedence. This is something that your sources do not make clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larmas ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've reverted several links added by the badly-named editor KCL Archives ( talk · contribs). My reading of WP:CURATOR and Wikipedia:Advice_for_the_cultural_sector is that archivists etc are positively encouraged to improve the encyclopedia by providing External Links to their resources where "the link gives readers critical information uniquely relevant to the topic": a major repository of a subject's papers fits this description. My instinct was to revert all your reversions, but I'm asking guru DGG (admin with a library background) for his views on this - see User_talk:DGG#Links_to_archives. Pam D 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The "Assessment" section mentions that there's a debate between supporters of Beatty and Jellico, but all I see is criticism of Beatty. That's why I tagged it. Is there no or little debate? Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 00:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your recent hard work on updating a bunch of these articles, especially SHAPE/ACO. I've run through a couple of corrections, small quibbles such as Allied Forces Mediterranean was under ACE rather than ACO at the time, as ACO didn't come along for another 50 years. Also I believe our linking policy is against taking out links to redirects; when we get the chance to write a separate article for Allied Forces Central Europe, which was in a very different pol-mil environment from JFC Brunssum, it would be best that the links to that Cold War formation link directly rather than having to change them all back. Finally I want to disagree with your characterisation of 'Steadfast Jazz'; I can produce multiple sources that refer to it and meet our notability guidelines, but the reason I added it is that ACO's focus is now havinjg to shift back to Article 5-type defence against Russia, and Steadfast Jazz was one of the first exercises that actually had this as a consideration, despite all the public palava about NRF preparation. A proper article about ACE/ACO, rather than the disjointed collection of horribly incomplete notes we have now, will have to incorporate major sections on the big exercises throughout its history, and this will include the Steadfast exercises. So I will readd that seed for a future better referenced addition. Again these are all really quibbles; thanks for all your hard work on these articles. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you so much for your help HayleySandford ( talk) 10:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC) |
Hayley - Very many thanks for the barnstar. Dormskirk ( talk) 19:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just filed a dispute resolution request regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. In eight years, I've never been as close to quitting this site entirely in the face of POVpushing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you kindly knock it off with reverting my cleanup to the Deloitte article? The changes are explained and references are cited. Thank you. 172.15.68.19 ( talk) 22:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I agree with your revert in regards to the addiction of honorific's & postnominal's from pages like David Richards, Baron Richards of Herstmonceux. However your statement that only PC's can use the title 'The Right Honourable' is incorrect.
The following persons are entitled to the style in a personal capacity:
Nford24 ( PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk We have recently discovered that Earl Roberts is on Our family tree and we are from Ormskirk? Is your name a connection? Annegal0803 ( talk) 22:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I reverted your edit within the RAF Andover since the article ( Army Headquarters (United Kingdom)) you were relating to, is a military formation not a physical location.
There is precedence for having separate article for major commands and their physical locations since Navy Command Headquarters has it's own article which is based at HMS Excellent (shore establishment) and so does RAF Air Command which is based RAF High Wycombe so it is only right that the British Army has it's equivalent. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
For your WW I associated British naval biographies, but I hope you're already aware of this source !! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've just filed a RfC-U regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. The issues raised are serious and concern WP's fundamental rules, including NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Re [Hi - Please can you add a page number (from Montgomery's memoirs) to the reference you have just added to this article. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)]
I copied it some time ago from the Project Gutenberg ebook version, which appears to have been removed from their list. I don't know whether page-numbers from ebooks are allowable anyway. Valetude ( talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - No problem. I have found it now and inserted the page number. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 19:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - me again. I notice in the page on Lord Dowding there is no mention of Enigma traffic/decrypts in the discussion about Big Wings. I don't have the book to hand but I believe Group Captain Winterbottom's book the Enigma Secret mentions that Leigh-Mallory and Sholto Douglas were not in on the Engima secret and that Dowding and Park had seen decrypt's showing that Goering wanted Park to defend en masse so that Goering could draw up 11 Group with a feint and then send in the real force when 11 Group were back on the ground refueling. And of course at any inquiry Dowding and Park could not mention Engima. Another place to look would be the book "Narrow Margin" on which the film the "Battle Of Britain" was significantly based.
Dear Dormskirk,
If you would be interested, I would like to give you a copy of our recent book on our father, Gordon MacMillan, on which we based the Wikipedia revision - but I shall need a postal address. Best wishes,
Andrew MacMillan 79.33.203.174 ( talk) 06:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Great! I hope you enjoy it. When we approached Pen and Sword about publication, they wrote a very nice letter but said that we shouldn't mix family and military history, so you may not find it to your liking! 79.27.202.165 ( talk) 11:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
After nearly 3 years since you made the article, I noticed that the lead seems to cut short. "Sir Reginald Hervey Hoare KCMG (19 July 1882 - 12 August 1954) was a British diplomat and bank" I don't know if you still remember how the sentence ended, but it seems a little silly to just end there. -- Lewis Hulbert ( talk) 23:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Earlier this year you made some changes to this article. A translation was written on and for the Dutch Wikipedia, which is where I am most active since Dutch is my native language. I stumbled upon a few sentences that I am having trouble with understanding. An anon wrote the sentences and two other contributers seem not to respond to any discussion, which is why I am contacting you. Can I assume that you possess some knowledge about the former airstation? If yes, perhaps you could help me out. This is what I am not quite understanding:
Thank you in advance for your time. Maartenschrijft ( talk) 18:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk. I noticed that you have responded to a Request Edit before and was active in company/finance/business topics and I thought I would see if you had some time to spare to look at some content where I have a COI at User:CorporateM/Elgato. It's terribly boring I'm afraid - the company is not notable at all, but their products are (but not so notable as to warrant separate pages for each), so I wrote it as an article on a product line or brand. Some of their products sound pretty cool though. There's no major controversy or anything that makes my COI particularly relevant, just used secondary sources, reviews, etc. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate that you do a lot of good editing on military units. Unfortunately at the moment you are confusing Battlesbury Barracks with the Greater Warminster Garrison. HQ inf, the Land warfare Centre, SASC (which is in the same Bks as HQ Inf), etc are all separate units within the Garrison. Also note that 1Yorks are not currently part of the Land Warfare Battle Group, but are on Collective Training. They will be returning to the Brigade at the next changeover. That position rotates between the three Armoured Infantry Groups based around the Plain IE: one on collective training (including being at Suffolk in Canada or another country), one in the LWBG role, whilst the other is available for deployment on active service. Do not rely on the MoD website to be fully up to date, we have to submit regimental changes to them to be updated, which in itself relies on us having time to do it, along with someone who has done the website training being available. Richard Harvey ( talk) 11:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi I changed the name from Phoenix group to Phoenix group Holdings because of he following reasons :
Lakun.patra ( talk) 11:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this revert. Would you like rollback so you can revert obvious crap like that more quickly? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dormskirk, I saw you rewrote Sturdee's biography - you might be interested to know Sturmvogel 66 and I are (slowly) working on a couple of Good Topics, one of which involves Sturdee. I don't know if you're planning to take Sturdee to GA or if you'd be interested in working on Cradock's biography (I'm planning on tackling von Spee's article in the short term, but you'd be welcome there too if you have any interest), but I thought I'd mention the project to you. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
|
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) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I keep editing your new articles before you have finished tweaking, it is not intended to disrupt your flow! MilborneOne ( talk) 15:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Insists on not using the new names of 1st (UK) Division and 3rd (UK) Division despite primary evidence. It may be sticking to the narrow Wiki rules, but this presents inaccurate information to readers.
Phd8511 ( talk) 09:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So what is the Wikipedia name of British Army units vs the proper name of British Army units? Imagine a curious person searching for 3rd (United Kingdom) Division on Wikipedia, he gets a different name. What is the true fact? Phd8511 ( talk) 15:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help updating the Aviva plc page
HayleySandford (
talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
but if user:PBS and others want to rename it as 20th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom) and "un-educate" people, then it is up to them. I'm tired of the battle. Phd8511 ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dormskirk,
I hope you don't me asking, but you have always been so approachable and helpful in the past. Our Aviva CEO's Wikipedia profile is incomplete so I've made some suggestions to update it: /info/en/?search=Mark_Wilson_(businessman)
When you have a moment would you mind taking a look and updating his profile please? If this isn't your area of expertise, I'd be so grateful if you could point me in the right direction of someone that can help please.
My sincerest apologies if this isn't the correct way to request an update, but I wasn't sure who else to speak to.
Thanks so much for all your help,
Hayley — Preceding unsigned comment added by HayleySandford ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
|
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) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to the Henry Keppel article. I see you have recategorized some publications written by Keppel from" Publications" to "Further reading". My understanding is that further reading are works on the topic of the article, that give greater depth on the subject. In the case of biographical articles, the further reading would typically be books authored by others, about the subject. If the subject of the article has written books him/herself, I believe they are better included under the title of "Publications", "Works", or "Bibliography", above the the References section. One example of that is the articles on Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Cheers. ( talk) user:Al83tito 13:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
i don't know who yiu think you are!!!! I wrote this article and so what do you know about??? Leave hands Off! If you wanted to add to an article you should do so. But if you only occupation is chopping, then forget it! Vandal! I started the article and added to it. It is not even yours, In any way at all. Leave Off! Oh an by the way I hate images of animals on my website!!!
Jgrantduff (
talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |