For messages older than 6 months, or concluded discussions, please see Archive
Hello Tony Holkham: Thank you for your interest and corrections in the Second Battle of St. Michaels. Here is my non-Wikipedia version of the "battle". British Rear Admiral Cockburn wanted to capture some deserters. He needed to punish them because discipline was a problem. British Colonel Thomas Sydney Beckwith's force was there simply to prevent American troops at St. Michaels from interfering. Cockburn was unable to find the deserters, but captured a few militia men that he later paroled. Beckwith did his job by preventing American interference. The Americans, after observing the withdrawal of Cockburn and Beckwith, thought they had prevented an attack on St. Michaels and driven away the British—a "victory" for the Americans. All of this seems obvious to me, but I could not find anything to cite. Instead, we have an American interpretation of what happened. TwoScars ( talk) 15:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, just regarding your revert here [1], could we maybe then use a different term than "national identity" ? I'm not sure to which bit you're referring later on, because there's no mention of "national identity" until Tryweryn in 1965? Yr Enw ( talk) 06:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Headley Down, may have introduced referencing errors. They are 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, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Tony - great to see you. I'll leave Pages 1861 to 1880 to you or we'll edit-clash. It would be nice to clear this on St David's Day! KJP1 ( talk) 12:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
We're done. Really, really appreciate your help. KJP1 ( talk) 16:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to offer a belated congrat.s on your GA for Pembrokeshire. Casting about for something new to get my teeth into, I looked at the county article for my own adopted county, Monmouthshire. Although some editors have done some good work, it’s not in great shape, with big chunks missing which I would have expected to see; Economy, Transport, Demographics, etc., etc. So I thought I would see how other Welsh Principal areas were handled, and came across Pembrokeshire. It’s a model! - and I’m not surprised it’s the only PA GA. I hope you will take it as a compliment if I shamelessly nick the structure, with proper attribution of course. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 17:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Dear Sir I am troubled by your comments while discussing lifeboat names, or unnamed.
I only started updating in November. Most lifeboat pages were found missing or needing up to date information, so I grabbed the bull by the horns, and started making updates. The most significant thing I have done, is rearrange fleet tables so they are all the same format, and added a whole section of Station Honours for nearly all pages.. I have added missing boats, ON numbers, class types etc as referenced by the LBES handbook, and added info such as 30-foot Self-righting (P&S), taking great care to maintain format. I do not wish to upset anyone.
Having not made any significant contribution for 5 years, this chap seems to have taken umbridge at my attempts to make updates.
I have had updates completely rewritten after just 12 minutes. I have suddenly found pages and tables rearranged while I'm mid edit. He has been trailing me around all the South West sites, making a point of changing every addition I have made, changing Unnamed to (No Name), changing class type to whatever he chooses - I believe the latest one is 'Standard Lifeboat', and making all tables sortable - even ones with only two entries. He is deleting entries to valid pages, such as 35ft 6in self-righting lifeboats. And in one case, he created a whole history of gallantry, so he could delete my Station Honours entry.
I'm not well acquainted sufficiently with Wiki to be able to raise a fuss and say vandalism.
I'm not a bad guy. I'm really very reasonable and care about what I do. I have now created a further 12 station pages, one on Steam-class lifeboats, one on Civil Service lifeboats, and created or amended all the D-class pages.
So please don't judge me by my profile notes, which are borne of the absolute nonsense I have endured from a fellow member of the group after only days into editing. Martin Ojsyork ( talk) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Tony
Just seen your edit on RNLI page
I've been struggling to know what to do about the entry from RNLI Historian
The first one was a complete cut and paste from the RNLI.(copyright contravention).
But I thought the info maybe worthy of being included somehow, so I rewrote with a citation.
He's just deleted some of the extra ref to his accompanying crew and bronze medals. and now you have moved it - but I'm not sure it should be included in the list of multiple medal winners??
He has also just added his original cut and paste to the RNLI Medals page. /info/en/?search=Awards_of_the_Royal_National_Lifeboat_Institution In the eyes of Wiki, its complete Copyright contravention. Martin Ojsyork ( talk) 09:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)