User talk:Greenshed/Archive 4
 | 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. |
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
AFD
A discussion on possible deletion of the Francesco Schettino biographical article (currently a redirect to the article on the disaster) is underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Schettino. I see you've participated in discussions on this topic in the past and thought you might like to share your thoughts as well.--RadioFan (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Officer Ranks and Insignia of the Indian Air Force requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sumanch (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about your recent edit, but please note that WP:ERA has been changed, and if, for instance, an article started at BC but for some time (two years say) had been stable at BCE, then a change back to BC would probably need discussion as per WP:ERA. There have been a couple of cases like that recently was an editor was ignoring the change and simply saying 'it started with this so it should be changed back'. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Succession boxes
Hi mate, tks for adding succession boxes to McCauley -- it hadn't actually occurred to me, even as the main editor for the article, how often he and Bladin had followed each other in posts! In my last tidy-up, I RVed to before the SASO NWA one. I thought of reinstating it but it seems to me that it might be going a bit far to include it, rather we should stay with commands or very senior positions like DCAS. Also, while I was thinking of creating an article for Hely, I don't think I'll ever get round to it now and would be a bit surprised if anyone else did... ;-) Anyway, let me know if you feel strongly about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
J Banda
Hi I removed your addition for the same reason as I removed an identical addition yesterday - diff - Regards - Youreallycan 22:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Would you take a look at the revised Intro. Having got the support of three others, I went ahead and rewrote it. One of the "owners" has twce reverted it, despite impeccable references and a quote from Boris. The editor asks "Why is it significant that the Queen visited germany? They are a German family." This is not the right person to be controlling what goes into the article. I need backup. Because of the parade, there have been 200,000 hits this morning, and its only about 8 oclock! Amandajm (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the latest from the Elizabeth II article. Achieving improvement is very difficult. I need backup.
Still working on this article. Still being reverted at every turn. This is my latest message. I need back-up.
- DrKiernan, what you have written here only makes sense if:
- You can conveniently ignore the fact that several independent editors: User:Andrew Davidson, Greenshed and Ondewelle all stated on this page that the the Introduction needed improving, while 76.102.1.193 wrote "barely interesting information that would be largely incomprehensible to a typical reader. Epic fail."
- What you have written here only makes sense if you, and the other reverters truly believe :
- that the fact that the Queen is Head of the Church of England didn't need to be in the Intro.
- that the Coronation was less important than the fact it was televised
- that the war in the Falklands was less important than Andrew and Fergie's divorce
- That the Queen's achievements didn't require stating at all
- That the whole events of a year that was 20 years ago is still so "up there" that it has to be detailed the intro, to the exclusion of a favourite uncle's assassination and the deaths of mother and sister.
- That Princess Diana really required three mentions in the introduction
- That the Queen stayed in the palace while in mourning was more significant to her reign than the fact that she visited the Pope, after a breach of 500 years.
- That the fact she is the world's most travelled head of state is not noteworthy enough for the introduction.
- That a spat between two Corgis takes precedence over the Gulf War
- That it is really significant that some viewers (in 1953) went to their neighbour's house to watch the tele.
- That if a newspaper or chatty biographer tells us what the Queen thinks of her Prime Minister, then it can be quoted as encyclopaedic fact.
- Those of these matters that I have raised here or have tried to edit have been repeatedly argued against and deleted. Some have finally been accepted, in the light of criticism from others, but it has been very very difficult (and exhausting) to get you to accept any of these changes.
- Your favourite argument is that there is no consensus. Do the opinions of User:Andrew Davidson, Greenshed, Ondewelle, 76.102.1.193 and Amandajm count for nothing? That makes five people who think this article needs improvement.
- However, all the others merely made their point, and went away, probably presuming that having given an opinion, it would be taken seriously, and acted upon. Unfortunately, they didn't count on the extraordinary difficulty that an editor might have in actually achieving improvement.
- Amandajm (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Amandajm (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:56, 23 June 2012 (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. |