I have noticed that you keep removing China from the Tibetan Mastiff article and IPs keep adding it back. Please do not remove it, please discuss it on Talk:Tibetan Mastiff. Since today Tibet is part of China, I won't get into a discussion about this fact, it seems to be appropriate to have China in the article. If you disagree you need to explain why China should not be there. GBfan 15:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reaction on inline citations on the Sjoerd Vollebregt article. At this moment I'm trying to standardized all Dutch Olympic Sailors from 1900 - 2012. During this work I have learned about this issue. However I like to finish the work in this way. After that I will redo them all in order to make the inline quotes. This will be easier for me If they are first like this. Thanks for your patience. NED33 (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could help. Is it possible to start then in 1900 so that our work will not conflict. And I continue from 1976 - 2012 this way? You can use the templates below to locate them all:
Okay, but now it is not correct anymore. Since the sources are completed till 1976. Im still working to put the others in from 1980 to 2012. So in the case of Sjoerd you are now referring to the documentation of 1976 for 1980. Also this way of coding makes it hard to maintain. Let me make an example how I would prefer it to be coded before you continue. Thanks.NED33 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this solution for the inline citations? Sjoerd Vollebregt Also easy to maintain and split in to citations and for further reading.NED33 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, But I will finish 1976 - 2012 first on the baseline (as e.g. Erik Vollebregt) level before i will make this changes. Otherwise the work will never finish :-).NED33 (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why you took down the Ritchie Boy revisions? Did I do a faux pas by posting them? I had put them up in the Talk section first without comment. No rationale seems to be offered for excluding new material, such as proper demographics (numbers), etc. My father has painstakingly worked for years at the Archives getting this information. He has viewed the original records from each class, etc. and is currently working with an historian on a book about the subject. Please let me know what I should do to — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWikiUpdates4Life (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why you took down the Ritchie Boy revisions? Did I do a faux pas by posting them? I had put them up in the Talk section first without comment. No rationale seems to be offered for excluding new material, such as proper demographics (numbers), etc. My father has painstakingly worked for years at the Archives getting this information. He has viewed the original records from each class, etc. and is currently working with an historian on a book about the subject. I'm new to this and doing this for him. Please let me know what I should do to properly post these revisions.
