This is an archive of past discussions about User:Woody. 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.
Thank you for your edits regarding LÉ Orla (P41) and the other ship: By official action, and express desire of the members and Britain, the British Commonwealth ceased to exist 58 years ago in 1949 and has been replaced by the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth never had a navy and never had jurisdiction over Hong Kong, so I had to edit that out of the articles. As they remain, the articles are inconsistent since they say the ships were turned over to the Philippines but are in the Irish Navy. Please resolve this inconsistency. Hu11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Signing on Talk pages
Please sign comments on talk (discussion) pages with four tildes ~~~~ to automatically leave your user name and the time and date. Hu18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Done the notable players is done found a great website which was a full aston villa player database, put a link to it at the bottom of the page if you want to check it out.
Must say the page is looking excellent (Everlast1910 21:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
Yes it should Villa should be were we belong!(Everlast1910 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
Would be nice and help if we signed some bloody players!(Everlast1910 22:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
Hey just read your message just got back from holiday! what needs doing then mate?
and is there any pics of the new kit? (Everlast1910 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Not a problem i go away again tomorrow morning but should have internet access so at least once a day next week it will be fine as i am back! (Everlast1910 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Okay i get the point sorry about that! - Also just got back from hols so im free now if anything needs doing! Sorry that i haven't helped out last couple of weeks just been away!
(Everlast1910 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
HMS Ledbury (L90)
Hi, I managed to improve the article on some of the points named in the peer-review, but could you please expand upon your comments, obviously when you have time. Thanks a lot for your help in this article so far. Reuv20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I continued to improve the references section of the article, and I expanded the Further Action section as well...the main problem is that this ship served a very important role during one convoy and then just receded into 'normal' actions after that....i did try to improve the PQ 17 section as well, since there is some reference to the Ledbury there but only passing references to her presence in the Adriatic, Aegean or Operation Husky are to be found...I hope the paragraphs I strung together about her later actions are enough to balance the whole. Thanks again for your help and interest!!! Contact me on my talk page if you can spare more hints! Reuv11:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate a lot your help in this article, I've addressed the issues mentioned, removed the italics, arranged time according to MoS, and changed the dates for the references in the suggested style. I also renamed the multiple references and used the format given. Thanks a lot for the hints! Reuv00:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about the italics issue no inconvenience at all, again thanks for your help so far! Reuv21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot tell you how much I'm grateful for your constant help in this article, thanks for moving it to its right place!!! Reuv18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Non breaking Space
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 80 miles, use 80 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 80 miles. With regards to this guideline could ypu please stop removing the correct formatting to ship articles such as your edits on [Trenchant]. Unless there is a new rule that has been implemented usurping this one can you stop? thanks Woodym55518:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, not a big deal, just that it is the minor sort of thing that FA/Ga candidates are sometimes failed on. It is also annoying having to go through articles adding them in, that's all, no biggy, just thought you ought to know that it was breaking the guidelines. Woodym55522:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I started expanding the VC article a little - primarily regarding the pre Crimean War situation. This edit ([1]) seemed to remove a bit of the material that I was in the middle of adding re the award of gratuities to deserving soldiers. I really shouldn't have left this half done in the middle of an FA nomination, but essentially this was leading up to a mention of the institution of the Long Service and Good Conduct medal and the Meritorious Service Medal. There are a few instances (pre DCM and VC) of the MSM having been awarded for gallant conduct so I thought it was worth a mention. Thoughts?
Hi., i believe you need to add the references in the main article even if there are thorougly referenced in a seperate article. I hope that clarifies your query. --Kalyan18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I hadn't realised it was a quote. I have reverted those changes and wrapped the text in {{lang|ang}} (which defines the HTML language as Old English) and will stop AWB wanting to make that change to that text in the future. Thanks, mattbr17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Victoria Cross for Australia
Hi Woodym555. You are off to such a great start on the article Victoria Cross for Australia that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee(Talk)02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I've added some comments here, sorry they're took a while, been busy. Let me know if I can help further and let me know when I can come back and re-assess the article to hopefully offer my support. The Rambling Man16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ark Royal photos
Hey thanks for pointing that out. I was under the impression Ark Royal was docked so just assumed it was Illustrious! Its actually been marked as Illustrous for almost a year on the main RN page: Royal Navy#History of the Commanders-in-Chief!!! I actually no nothing about aircraft carriers, their weapons etc so please feel free to manually request the name changes of the images and change the descriptions yourself. One of us should also change the image caption on the main Royal Navy page!!!! Well spotted. LordHarris20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey no problem I'll get the originals off my external hard drive tommorow and upload them with new names and let you know when ive done so. Have a cookie for being so observant. LordHarris21:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Usually they'll accept the URL without complaining but like once out of every 5 times, it won't work. Thanks for the help. :) -WarthogDemon00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't think that qualifies as fair use. Just needing an image is not enough to have it here. Fair use is when you are discussing the copyrighted "object in question", in this case the photo itself is the copyrighted object but you are discussing the ships that are depicted in the photo. So there is really no way that you can use this photo without permission. If you want, you can ask the Royal Navy for permission to use this image in conformance to Wikipedia's policies, see: WP:COPYREQ#For images (they should irrevocably give permission to allow reproduction of this image for all purposes - including modifications and commercial uses).--Konstable02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Cowan
I'm sorry if I went on at length; I've been dealing with a good soul who thinks he hasn't plagiarized if his source says X and Y, where X and Y are whole clauses, and he puts Y and X in Wikipedia.
I think the second sentence, the one about the "complex situation in Latvia" can be simplified further, btw. Official writing is really awful.
Did you really consult the Dartmouth archives yourself? If you read a book that did, please change those footnotes to "So-and-so, p. n., citing the Dartmouth archives". That way one gives full credit to So-and-so for the work he did. (From my point of view, pagenumbers are not particularly important when citing a book with a decent index; but FA regulars disagree.) SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I quoted both at length because I wasn't sure whether there had been some small tweaks, in which case it would be fair to have both texts to see where they did differ. Sorry for sounding triumphal; I was merely trying to be convincing. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Reo-Coker with Villa
I know he is Woody - but he hasn't been given a squad number yet by AVFC. Adam
History of Villa
Yes mate delete it by all means! I started it because i needed somewhere to keep all the info when i was splitting it into two! It was kind of a way to keep people happy who didn't want it splitting! So by all means delete it!!
(Everlast1910 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Military use of .440 Cor-bon
I see that you recently added the Military History project tag to the .440 Cor-bon article and was curious to find out why if possible. In the past others have removed this tag from this article because as far as can be told there is no military history for this cartridge. I wondered if you either know about military use of it, which would be very interesting, or if the scope of the Military History project is different than what one would expect. Arthurrh20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're trying to do with the RN article, it's needed work for a while, but tbh I have some difficulty with you ripping the CINCFLEET command structure out of the appropriate section in the article. C2 of Fleet is intimately intertwined with the various individuals involved, to the extent that there is no clear hierarchical diagram of the command.
None of that is referencable, I'm not convinced there has been anything published following the CINC/ 2SL merger and the subsequent entry into the Lean process, which is clearly an issue as far as WP is concerned.
No problems with removing the history of the CINCs section, it was out of place and I'd been thinking about how to deal with it for a little while. The CINC page is most appropriate.
The issues around Command and Control (C2) are difficult, even for those involved in the command structure, either in HQ or elsewhere. My point is more that the various posts mentioned are the Fleet Command Group, therefore fit in the C2&Org section. That is the Fleet organisation as much as it can be defined, although it's in the middle of yet another change at the moment. If you're going to start listing senior RN officers then you'd need to start including the multitude in the MOD, Defence Equipment & Support, with the other two uniformed services and in various diplomatic posts all over the place.
I appreciate what you're trying to do, but wholesale movement of text, then trying to add interpretation, doesn't really help. I'd just leave it as a list of positions. I sought to remove the names previously but the rather retentive fixation with appending names to everything in WP prevented that. I don't think it actually adds anything.
What gets me if you look at some of the FA such as Everton and Man City the Villa one is so much better! Do you know when a decision will be made as we have support from everyone? (Everlast1910 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC))
Wooo! At last! I think i will start doing a few things today ill look on that website im ill and got to stay in bed so ill see what i can do before i have to have another nap! and well done! (Everlast1910 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
Transfer Sections
Implausable? Mais non! Seriously, that should read 1/07/07, thanks for spotting it :) As for the transfer sections, I'm pretty ruthless about that sort of thing... I have a strong dislike of recentism creeping into the articles, especially at this time of the year when people write paragraph after paragraph in club histories about this years pre season friendlies, and it ends up as long as the whole section dealing with the club's pre-war existance! Robotforaday19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. There is no need for the wikilinks to be bold and I will amend this. The reason, I think, is that I built up the initial list in excel and then wrote some formulas to create the text for the wiki table. I believe that I mistakenly added the three inverted comments at the beginning of that wikilink. Simple as that really. Please feel free to delete this comment once you have read it. Kwib12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Villains
Hey, thanks for your note but as of this morning, Raul654 removed it and Bole2 declared it as a promotion, so you have your bronze star already. As far as I can tell, the FAC hasn't been closed either way yet, but if it's positive then congratulations. The Rambling Man07:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have added Played win draw lose win% and filled in all the info for the managers hope thats okay! (Everlast1910 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
When i started i thought it was going to take ages but then went onto soccerbase.com typed in the managers name and its all there just had to work out the win% which isn't to hard so jobs a gud'un! What's next to do? (Everlast1910 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC))
Hey mate, I have added in a honours section for the captains and managers looks good for managers but the captains may need tweeking! (Everlast1910 15:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC))
I know your on hols - hope your having a good time.
Added more info on captains managers and notable players! And put Captains and managers up for GA! I think we just need a few touches on both of them and notable players until they are GA or even FA! (Everlast1910 18:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
Hey see your back! Hope you had a good hols im off for a couple of days, i have started a FL list for the notable players was wondering if you could work your magic on it :) (Everlast1910 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition
in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero23:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Aston Villa F.C.
Hi, I was looking through Aston Villa F.C. and noticed in the history section it has "Villa being relegated to the Third Division for the first time in 1971. They returned to the second division as Champions the following year..." As I'm sure you know, it was 1969-70 they went down, so it wasn't the following year they came back up - I could change it myself, but might end up phrasing it badly so thought I'd better just point it out to you. cheers, Struway2 | Talk14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Villa Dates
Yeh it's Villafanuk - bit of a sloppy edit wasn't it - sorry - I just noticed it this morning when I should have been working!!
The date of Pongo Waring's record goal tally was definately 1930/31 - the same season Villa finished runners-up to Arsenal scoring a record 128 goals. Reference - Aston Villa A Complete Record 1874-1988, David Goodyear and Tony Matthews, Breedon Books, 1988 p.31
Well done on helping to get Aston Villa to featured article status! Up the Villa! Villafanuk 15:38 03 August 2007
Aston Villa captains and managers
OK, got it. The tag you want is db-g6, housekeeping (it's helpful to explain the reasons for the housekeeping request in the tag, too). I've deleted the combined page. Thanks, NawlinWiki13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
List of AVFC players
Hi, the black text makes it very much clearer for me to read, thanks. As to the sorting, I had effectively the same problem when working recently on a very similar list, which is how I knew why yours wasn't working but sadly not how to fix it. Hope you get some more helpful response at the talk page.
I find your sweeping that "Unilateral action is not permitted under WP:CONSENSUS" at best eyebrow-raising. WP:CON is about dispute resolution and decision making (more commonly policy and guideline decisions). Regular, run-of-the-mill editing is all about being bold. As it is, WP:CONSENSUS is most appropriate when the actions are sweeping (e.g. merging a dozen articles together) or truely controversial (e.g. if I wanted to add religions to the list). As there wasn't any cogent reason to me that this list should be kept separate (There is only one column of difference between it and the players listing, and other FLs make it clear the combined list is perfectly fine), and I didn't think the move was particularly controversial, I went ahead and did it myself instead of requesting it on the WP:FLC page (which, do not make any mistake, I would have done had I noticed the separate listings before). Circeus17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounded rude. If you think there are reasons to keep these two lists separate, by all mean explain them, and if the consensus turns out to be against the merge, I'll be more than happy to reverse it! Circeus17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to keep the players list discussion at WP:FOOTY to see if other have further input to it. As for the double HoF listing, it seems fine to me. At least, it's not like the two lists risk becoming inconsistent with each others. I've added a note about Saunders (and attempted to remove a few "empty" headers). Circeus18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually think use of yellow is now entirely unnecessary. Captaincy is indicated by the presence of that column. Circeus21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry went and changed the flags back by all means do what we need to to get it up to the standard it looks brilliant i must say! William wasn't a player as far as I am aware just think he was a director! Can't believe Archie Hunter was never inducted into the HOF! Anyway give us a shout if i can do anything! (Everlast1910 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
I personally think, I don't know about you if we could get the managers section done next! Then the history's followed by Villa park, would we be the first football article to be up for a featured topic! I know its far away and will take a lot but like me is that your overall goal? Thanks again! (Everlast1910 22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC))
Bloody hell you've got a lot well, I'll have a search once the Notable players article is done for some in depth history sites! --Everlast1910 09:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What would say if i stared an article about Aston Villa players who have only played for villa one-club-men so "Aston Villa one club men" which could link to the notable players? Or added it into the notable players. The reason is i think we have more one club men than most clubs! (Everlast1910(Talk) 10:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
Image copyright problem with Image:SSThistlegorm aftview.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:SSThistlegorm aftview.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Hi. About the date-delinking and re-linking at this article: Linking year-alone dates (e.g. "1944", "1492" or "490 BC") is optional. Years need to be linked only when they appear in full dates (day, month and year). That is so as to enable date-format preferences -- it makes the dates appear in whichever format for dates a reader has chosen, if they have chosen. Wikipedia's Manual of Style neither requires nor forbids the linking of year-alone dates, and general agreement is lacking on whether doing so betters or worsens articles. (I tend to favour it, myself, especially for historical articles, for much the same reason as you gave in your post on Hmains' talk-page.) In the lack of consensus on the point, editors are not supposed to go around stripping all such date-links from articles, and Hmains (and a few others) have gotten into hot water over this in the past. These days, he's carrying on his campaign at a low enough level that it is largely escaping notice. He still ought not be doing it, at least in my opinion. It is really up to the regular editors of the article to decide whether year-alone datelinks are beneficial (or at least harmless), or detrimental -- whether to keep them, how many, and which. Best regards, Lonewolf BC18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
(moved to here from my talkpage, for sake of continuity -- Lonewolf BC23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)) Thanks for clearing it up or attempting to. The whole thing is subjective and as such is down to personal opinion. I will keep the article as it currently is, only years covered by World Wars will be linked. Also is there any current guideline on World War one/World War I or is just personal preference again. I personally don't mind either way i just used the one that is not a redirect. Thanks for your help. Woodym55518:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's about the size of it: Year-linking is a matter of editorial judgement, but roaming through articles and indisciminately nuking every single year-link, drive-by style, without substantially editing the articles, is not kosher. (Running through articles and linking every single year would be no better, though I don't know of anyone doing that.)
So far as I know, "Second World War" and "World War II" are equally acceptable usages in Wikipedia articles (although the article on that war, itself, is entitled "World War II"). Certainly they are both well-known synonyms. Other usages, such as "World War 2", "WWII", "WW2", "World War Two", are discouraged, so I understand. I'm pretty sure I got all that from someplace within WP, though I cannot recall just where I read it. For something more definitive, you might try asking at the article on that war, or at this wikiproject, that might just yield a mound of conflicting opinion.
I've also been informed, and somewhat noticed for myself, that "Second World War" is the preferred Commonwealth usage, while "World War II" is favoured in the United States (though both are universally known among English-speakers, of course). This makes the former usage more fitting for an article on a British admiral.
However, if nothing else, when linking "Second World War" it is better to let the redirect do its job, rather than piping the link.
All the equivalent stuff applies to "First World War" and "World War I". I understand that "the Great War" is a third alternative in that case, though personally I think that term is anachronistic, given that the Second World War was the greater of the two
Your comment on my talk page indicated you had a question. I can discuss whatever you want, unless you have already made up your mind based on the input from one party only. I can talk here on this page as Lonewolf BC stalks my talk page so he can intercede in anything he does not like. Thanks Hmains02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
If he is indeed WP:STALK you then report him on the WP:ANI or politely request that he stops. If you aren't doing anything that warrants stalking (ie, breaching guidelines and rules) then i suggest you have nothing to fear.
With regard to the datelinks i do think that Lonewolf BC has valid points in his reasoned discussions above. The basic summary of it is, that it is subjective. As one of the main contributors to the page i feel that the years provide sufficent context to be merited. They link to years of the World Wars that other users will find helpful in providing context. There are several guidelines relating to this which have a clause regarding context. That is the clause that i use to justify the continued wikilinking of certain dates in the Cunningham article. Woodym55519:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you have done regarding stand alone year links in the article and your reasoning. Good. Usually there is no reasoning, just linking every year in sight or just doing so randomly. Either way makes no sense. In regards to Lonewolf BC, it is not only his/her behavior I object to, but his repeated material misrepresentation of fact regarding what I do. But that is not your problem and WP seems unwilling to do anything about editors such as him/her. Thanks again. Hmains03:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
Sorry, I've been diverted to domestic matters this week. I hope to continue soon. I found info for North on [2] (I should have cited it). The compilers are Dutch (I think) so wherever I can, I validate against other sources. It's not that the info is necessarily unreliable, but sometimes the compilers misread English. The tabular info usually gets regurgitated as prose. Happy editing. Folks at 13711:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Done a bit more reading and thought I'd add comments here (again, subjective).
"Association with Cowan": needs sub-editing: as I read it, it doesn't flow and could be split into 2 or more paras.
I think a bio such as this should separately record the subject's private or family life and background. The reference to ABC's marriage would not then interrupt the narrative of his service career.
"Promotion to Flag Officer": confusion here between flag officer and flag rank - not the same, see flag rank. Again(!) I think wording needs refinement, I'll have a go, if you like (don't want to usurp you!).
"Second World War": "... safety of convoys heading for Egypt and Malta, whose significance he fully appreciated." Either let the reader know what "... significance he fully appreciated" or remove the phrase. Otherwise it's a bit "secret squirrel".
"French Surrender (June 1940)": "Warships" should be "warships": no capital. Para reads well.
"Battle of Taranto (November 1940)": whose idea was it to try an air attack? If it was ABS's it should be mentioned.
Fleet Air Arm could be linked to article.
"Battle of Cape Matapan (March 1941)": "intended to carry out a surprise attack on the British cruisers". Which British cruisers? As I understand it, a cruiser squadron (Pridham-Whippell could use a link) was positioned south of Gavros as part of ABC's effort to intercept the Italians - "standing by for eventualities". BTW, ABC's main force was the 1st Battle Squadron, plus Formidable.
"Allied Expeditionary Force (1943–1946)": was the order "Sink, burn, capture, destroy. Let nothing pass" purely to the fleet? I thought he had CinC responsibilities beyond the fleet at this stage. Also, is there anything about how the German build-up in Tunisia was allowed?
The last few sections read better than the earlier ones. It's a matter of taste, but also I usually have to sub-ed my own stuff to eliminate verbosity. As was once said "I don't have time to write a short article".
I have implemented some of your fixes. The Cowan section has been split, Lochinvar has been red-linked. (btw i created the Port Edgar page so know about Lochinvar!) Fixed the flag rank and significance sentence though it might need copyediting.
Bio:I might pull up the subjective card on the bio one. I think it would need a substantial rewrite to move it around. The early life and retirement might need mixing up and more information sourced. Currently, i personally (again subjective, feel free to disagree), i don't think it blocks up the text the way it is. peer review, A-Class review and the other FA reviewers haven't seen it as an issue.
Taranto: Lumley Lyster came up with the plan a few years before, it was changed slightly then put into action. I thought this was clear, (probably not if you've questioned it!)
Matapan:All of the fleet movements are explained in the Matapan article. I have added in a British Cruiser Squadron in the area. At the beginning it was ordered to meet up with pridham-Wippell who would then join up with Cunningham. As it turned out they didn't meet up early enough cue lots of miscommunication, near-misses and lucky escapes.
I have done some copyediting work on the earlier sections. The Cowan section originally had blockquotes in it, when they were removed the section wasn't properly formatted. If you feel it needs some sub-editing then please do it (if you have time), you won't be stepping on my toes, if it needs it then it needs it. As it is in my watchlist i will see any changes. I don't own the article by any means! Thanks for your help Woodym55519:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for slow response. Just back from a family wedding and must look out for son's A level results & clearing, maybe. Be back on-line asap. Folks at 13722:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Currently proof-reading and testing links. Will do a mass of minor fixes asap, or perhaps in instalments. Feel free to revert, amend or fume as appropriate. Folks at 13719:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't know that either (although it is just a guideline). I had thought it was a "standard", mandatory, to seek to ensure that redirects were avoided. What d'you think? Should I review my changes and revert where appropriate - I've had a quick look and I don't think there are many to redo. All is ok on exam front - son got his first choice - much to our surprise and delight - still on cloud 9. Folks at 13723:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough and I agree it's an improvement in some cases, but there are other cases where piping can be improved, eg HMS Warspite (03) instead of Warspite (1913) or to avoid a disambig page or correct a misdirection. I'll continue with more tweaks asap. Keep in touch. Folks at 13717:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, done fixing. Away for a few days. Is there any info about ABC's activity on the Dover Patrol in 1918: he got a DSO, so it should be worth a note. Folks at 13723:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
re: Dover Patrol, are these links of any help? [3][4][5][6] Not sure about FA status as I'm uncomfortable with doing ratings, but I'll have a rummidge v. the criteria. Folks at 13722:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving page
I have moved it think its worked changed the links on the info boxes and on AVFC page! Its the first time i have moved a page and think i have done it for the FLC? (Everlast1910( Talk) 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
The FLC doesn't seem to work? Don't know what i have done? Thought it was going to well! Can you sort it out please Thanks and sorry! (Everlast1910( Talk) 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
I clicked "move" changed it to "List of notable Aston Villa F.C players" then changed info box and link on main page. Then the FLC didn't move so i copy and pasted it test and didn't work then read you shouldn't do that! I think you need a admin to move the project page?
Yer there fair comments, as i have said before i just want whats best for the articles and if more experienced editors like you and others think something's better then its good enough for me! (Everlast1910(Talk) 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
Battle of Panipat (1761)
Dear Woody,
Thanks for the info, yes I'd aprpeciate it if you could put the article up for review please. Any advice you can provide will be appreciated. It's been a work in progress over the last few months, if you compare it to when i first started editing it you'll know what I mean! --Zak23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah the advice looks pretty useful, I tend to get stuck about the whole lead paragraphs. Can you link me to something that I can use as a template for it? thanks again --Zak13:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, yeah it needs a lot of work. I have just bought a reprint of two books translated eye witness accounts of the battle. Some of the books mentioned are in other languages and verifiying the references will take time. At elast I have two solid references for troop levels and additional info on the battle. your points about the names of rivers and places is important. I will try to ascertain the modern day names of the places mentioned and wikilink them that way it'll give me a clearer idea of the battle fought as well! It is hard finding stuff online on the battle, in fact the only one picture of the battle was made 10 years after it occurred and is with the British library. Still its a fascinating battle and it changed the course of history for both the sub continent and Britain. --Zak01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
One club men
I have had ago here. Compared to most club who only have about 3-4 at the max i think we do have more than other clubs and think it should be mentioned. I think the lead paragraph needs sorting out but would you make any changes or what do you think we should do?
Thanks (Everlast1910(Talk) 12:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
How about we highlight there "club career" with a light colour the players and link it to the one club man page then on the main AVFC page put the table in without the notes? (Everlast1910(Talk) 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
Okay so i agree highlight the club career! I think we should create a subpage with all the Villa players on with a better lead and just put a link to it on the main AVFC page any thoughts or would you just link it to all the players (Everlast1910(Talk) 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC))
No problem, glad to help and support. I just copied the text into Word and used "Find/Replace" to sort the nationality sortorder glitch before pasting it back, so it didn't take long. Having recently got a list through FLC, I know that people fixing minor problems is far nicer for the nominator than comments like Oppose: please change "a idea" to "an idea"... I look forward to seeing a star in the top left-hand corner of the page very shortly! Regards, BencherliteTalk12:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to getting involved with FLC stuff and am not well up on the procedure. Have now replied at FLC page. Struway2 | Talk22:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really asking for full feedback on this article (although I wouldn’t mind it). I’d just like to know what you feel the best way the divide up the Career section is, by Club, by season, not at all or some other way. Please leave your reply under the section in my talk page named “Milner Career section”. Buc16:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of HMS Egeria (1873), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: HMS Egeria. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
For anyone who cares the bot was too quick! I was creating a dab page with the info on a page. I forked it and the bot got to it before i could delete the original! Bots are taking over!Woodym55523:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at some pics iv got see if any's in there im sure ill be able to get one of MON that will be my job for tonight. What else is needed? (Everlast1910(Talk) 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
All refs are done and got rid of the ** and do it properly! Just waiting on a picture! Anything else you reckon. Should we sortname the list and nts the list? On another note don't you think compared to villa the man u and arsenal etc lst of players should be reviewed? (Everlast1910(Talk) 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
Image added! Play around a bit with it and the caption if you want! Looks a bit wired ! Do you want to do the honours and FLC? thanks again (Everlast1910(Talk) 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
Thx for your note. I guess I don't provide links coz I'm always in a hurry, and coz it makes people read MOS more thoroughly. Title case: don't use caps in titles unless they're the first letter or initials of proper nouns. Don't abbreviate main units (see "Units of measurement"). Tony15:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: Captain class frigate assessment
Thanks for assessing the article Captain class frigate, as per your comments the article is now fully cited (I hope). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thefrood (talk • contribs) 00:07:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the comment, I'll take a look at article you mentioned, as to the "red" links - most of them are for individual ships of the Captain class and I am working my way through these but there is a lot (78) of them! Thefrood00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Victoria Cross (Canada)
You are quite right that it needs to be taken to GAR first. This article was promoted based on GAC backlog elimination drive and right now we are concerned with many articles (to be exact, 22 articles) that are perhaps wrongly promoted to GA. If you check the elimination drive's talk page, it lists out what the problems are in each article. The ones marked with Question: indicates the article is at borderline and requires GAR for furthur determination, while the ones marked with Not done means it is far from complete. If we list all 22 articles up on GAR it is going to overload the review system. I was taking a reviewer's comments and decide to delist this article in addition to few more.
As for featured topic, delisted GA itself does not affect the outcome. It is common to have every single article within the topic to be GA or FA in order to become featured topic, but not a must. OhanaUnitedTalk page17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems that we are in the same boat there, OU did the same "I'm going to delist this thing since I feel like it" with me with Red Auerbach. I listed my article at WP:GA/R for appeal, maybe you should consider it, too. —Onomatopoeia10:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to be looking on this page as I'm currently working on Alex/Alec Leake, and realised that he doesn't appear on the List of Aston Villa F.C. players. Had a closer look and it appears that about half the players on that page with 100+ appearances (some, such as Chico Hamilton, with a lot more) don't appear on the list. I did wonder at the time it was up for FLC, because there seemed to be an awful lot fewer qualifying players than on my Birmingham City list (which may appear at some future date, if I live long enough to write enough stubs so it isn't embarrasingly red). Presumably your list is meant to be comprehensive - if so, I'd advise putting an incomplete list template at the top till someone's got time to sort it out. cheers, Struway2 | Talk11:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
as to accuracy, he sources from the Aston Villa Players Database, though via a now-dead link. The one or two players i checked had the same figures as on the list. Struway2 | Talk12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey mate! Yes i will look through it and add to the list and 125 its fine up to you? I'll go on the website we like and work season to season so we dont miss anyone? Do you want to split it say you do 1960+ and i do 1960- up to you im easy? Everlast191015:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you have finished N-Z so just a few M's left then? Then is it stub the redlinks and then move onto the next thing? seen as Managers should soon be FL! :) Everlast191016:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a book called A-Z of Villa and it has all the names in, i will expand them when I can. Use the Villa fanbase one as reference until i can add to them. Woodym55521:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How's the stubing going? Do you think we should do the seasons (like manure's) or the records next - is there any FA's on the records? Andy Everlast191018:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I did see his comments and was going to have a look for cup games or just do league! As far as i am aware i think its just from first Sir Graham to current which include the cup as well...Let me know what needs doing urgently and ill get onto it.!Everlast191020:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
ALSO on a side note i might have ago at doing something like this for villa's current season
link what you think? Everlast1910 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for another actually think its not that relevant maybe do it when other ones are done? Everlast191020:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes great another one to the list :) yep seasons is fine how we gonna do it copy it over with a blank table then fill it in as we go or what you think?
Copied the manure table over...left it with the --> tag things! So just needs there data deleting then ours adding hows easiest to do it? Everlast191023:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right i moved it over to here link all the cup/league wins relegations etc are in just needs goalscorers and season by season take a look? andy Everlast191015:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
all we need now is! 1906 to present league data which is just copy from wikipedia for that league data top goalscorers from your link and then FA cup data and then a few ref's? do you want to add to my sandbox link then copy it over once done or copy now?Everlast191016:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Up to you if you want you do goalscorers and ill finish the league stuff and then we'll move onto FA cups ref's and lead? Everlast191016:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Woo! done all the league data now all that needs doing is FA CUP and players goalscoring then extending lead and putting in ref's? What next then? Everlast191017:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Update - I have added the table and info from my sandbox over. I think we just need to extended the lead add notes and refs were needed and then add the seasons in! BUT For a FL i like manure's it don't need to be in it can be added later? what you think?Everlast191011:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Another one done! Up for FLC and sure it will soon be FL. So what is next records then history sections followed by Villa Park, B'ham derby and reserves? haha! Everlast191012:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What a coincidence! I have just logged on thinking that I would have a go at sorting out the various Arthur Brown footballers especially as Aston Villa seemed to have played several of them. I agree that to refer to any particular player as Arthur Brown (footballer) is misleading, so they should be disambiguated either by reference to their year of birth or by their full name. So yes, go ahead and move Arthur Brown (footballer) to Albert Arthur Brown. Best wishes. Daemonic Kangaroo18:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edits on the Template:First Sea Lord. I was just wondering why. My only intention was to bring it under the new standard template designs at WP:MILHIST#NAV. I would like to know what grieves you so much about the change to call it very unhelpful. Thanks Woodym55521:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is very unhelpful because:
The old version worked just fine and was highly intuitive
Your change only reveals the links to all the biographies if the user correctly guesses where to click. This is no doubt obvious to anyone who has played about editing such templates. It is not in the least intuitive to non-expert readers.
The benefit in saving space by compressing a box that appears at the bottom of the screen is not exactly obvious. I could see the point if it were something that appeared at the top of the page.
The argument that succession boxes make this feature unnecessary seems very odd. Succession boxes are a useful feature - in that they make it clear when people did certain jobs, who they replaced, and who replaced them. This on the other had gives a quick at a glance list complete with links.--Toddy121:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have not mentioned succession boxes, i think succession boxes serve their purpose. The "state = collapsed" parameter had to be removed, that is all, not the change to a milhist navbox. Personally i think it takes up less space on the page if it is hidden, but if you don't want the compress feature activated then i won't. I don't think it is that much of a stretch for a any user to click on the Show button. Maybe i am overestimating people's common sense?
I started a thread here, feel free to have your say. The issue however looks to be much more complicated than I initially predicted (there are some particular cases in which local names are not recognisable to an English user, for instance). --Angelo23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Canadian Victoria Cross
Hey,
Man I did that edit a long time ago, saw it in a CBC article. A simple Google search found a reference in the Canadian Encyclopedia, however:
The awarding of the medal was dropped in 1972 when the Canadian bravery awards were created; however, in Apr 1987 Brian Mulroney's Conservative government asked the deputy director of the Chancellory of Canadian Orders and Decorations to consider its reinstatement.
I was answering in the article's Talk page as you were posting your question on mine. I will restore the bolded text later if you think we needed it. Alexf(Talk/Contribs)17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I am only trying to help and hope I haven't accidently stumbled into an edit war or something.
I have not added any links. What I have done was as a result of my seeing the article for almost the first time and feeling frustrated with it. I wanted a list of the current royal navy ships, so I looked for it. The first place to look for links in most articles is in the "see also" at the end, so I scrolled there, but didn't find it. Yes it was there deep in the article, but I didn't find it immediately. I expect many users must come to the article in my position, just passing through looking for other links, when they do that then they immediately go to the bottom.
I realise there were places I could have clicked, but I didn't. Somehow, I didn't notice the box at the bottom of the article (which is superb!). I suppose I am so used to ignoring pop-up adverts that I don't look at things I should when I go to Wikipedia. Mike Young16:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Puerto Ricans missing in action in the Korean War
Thank you for your suggestions you are right, the list was a mess. I have taken action and made the changes requested. I would like to apologize to you because I had various doctor appointments and I couldn't make the fixes earlier. The featured list is a new concept to me, I have been so involved with writting articles that I was totally unaware of its existence until this nomination. I think it is a great idea and now I have an idea of requirements of an FL. I hope that after all issues are taken care of, that you will reconsider your vote. Take care. Tony the Marine20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
I see that the Cunningham article has achieved FA status. Thanks to your persistance and effort - have a beer! Perhaps that nice Mr O'Neil will have some luck at Villa. Folks at 13707:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
For evaluating over 600 articles in July/August 2007, as part of the Military History Tagging and Assessment Drive, I present you with the WikiChevrons. Thanks and well done. --ROGER DAVIESTALK17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
There are several considerations that lead (for me, at least) to this preference. The most obvious is simply that the topical break is expected (a great majority of lists do it) and is generally appropriate. Following that is that an extra header combined with the Standard appendices is usually enough to deal with the complicated of adding/removing the Table of content and making sure it appears in the right place. Third, it makes editing only the list (as opposed to the whole page) significantly easier, and this is not only relevant to those who, like me, happen to use an "edit intro" link-adding script, since there is a very real possibility this link will be added via preferences in the future. It is extremely frustrating when you want to edit a small typo in the intro and have to load a humongous table to do it.
Hello Woodym555. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
List of West Brom managers
I'd wait until the lead is expanded (if it can be; I don't know how much info can go into an introduction for a list). It's not a big deal, it just looked strange having a heading so close to the top of the article. - Dudesleeper · Talk14:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your courteous note on my talk page. I take it your point is that the VC (being the senior though not the higher honour) is listed before the GC - which is fair enough, though somewhat technical given that AFAIK no-one has ever been awarded both VC and GC! My concern is that the text at present states that the VC is "the highest award for bravery", without qualification - it then goes on to talk about postnominal precedence, but that is not the context within which the statement that it is "the highest award for bravery" occurs. The uninformed reader would reasonably assume, from the current wording, that all other awards for bravery are of lower status (and not just in terms of postnominal placement), which is not the case. I realise the position of the GC is explained later on in the article, but that doesn't exonerate the lead from giving a false impression. I wonder if we can find a compromise text here which meets both our concerns? e.g. by separating out the two issues. I suggest:
The Victoria Cross (VC) is a military decoration awarded for valour "in the face of the enemy" to members of armed forces of some Commonwealth countries and previous British Empire territories, and takes precedence over all other postnominals and medals. It may be awarded to a person of any rank in any service and civilians under military command, and is presented to the recipient by the British monarch during an investiture held at Buckingham Palace. It is the highest award for bravery in the United Kingdom, jointly with the George Cross.
Great minds think alike i was thinking this also because of COMS is a FA, think we should aim for GA then FA? Think we need to add more images in the commons like COMS stadium. So what should we start on ill add in the things i can now before i go to work! Andy Everlast191012:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey glad to see your back hope everythings alright! Villa Park had a peer review from rambling man and an automated one so i did everything in that and put it up for GA but still had no feedback the onlt thing i think we need is few more refs in history a tidy up and A REF FOR THE CONSTRUCTION COST as i cant find one anywhere!!! :) Everlast191014:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you've finished! I found the ref Rambling man was on about so fixed it! What next Villa Park to FA? Or one or get others to GA such as the history sections! Arsenal's Early history is FA! Also do you think the Reserve and Academy section's should be merged? Everlast191011:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Done! and fixed villa box thing! Needs a tidy up and ref'ing sometime! But I think there's more important articles than that ATM! So think we should go for FA on Villa park or the history and records to GA? Everlast191012:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think once VP passes GA ill put it up for FA to give us something to do while we mess with the history sections ;)! I had a look earlier and it looks like the history section your working on is looking good just need more info and ref's? Everlast191022:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all that if you need any help give us a message! And let me know when your done :). I'll have a look myself as you say reading COMS i see what you mean! Everlast191022:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Bed time! Ill have a hour or so before work tomorrow! So if you leave me a list of things that need doing or what you have done and ill carry it on tomorrow! :) Lets get Villa to the first FT football related thing! (if that makes sense) Everlast191022:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Break so its easier to read :) Just got in from work hows it going? And what else needs doing? :) Hope all is well ill try have a good couple of hours tomorrow working on the Villa articles, is there anything that needs doing urgently? Everlast191022:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Woo! I must say the history section looks brilliant! I have just read and made a couple of changes! So get a few refs the GA? Everlast191019:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC) And also :)...
Cut it to 1961 if you feel thats best i agree it should all be together and it would kind of even the number of years between the two articles? Everlast191020:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'd better make sure this stays an FA, even if the objections are rather vague. I'm gradually going through the prose to make sure it reads clearly, which hopefully I'll have finished before I go to watch my lot play your lot this afternoon. Could you give it a quick proofread whan I'm done? Oldelpaso09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Club season MoS
I'd like to apologize for the harsh way I express my point of view on this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Football_club_seasons_MoS. Not trying to excuse, but explaining, that came out from a continue dispute with other two editors, that by the way, I'm trying to end in the best way possible. I'm sure that you and other editors were, with the best intentions, trying to create a good MoS. Best regards. --ClaudioMB17:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the archived talk page conversation. Unfortunately, I missed the discussion as I've been on a WikiBreak. I have contributed well over 100 MOH recipient biographies and wish that I'd had a chance to weigh in. My opinion remains the same. As Medal of Honor recipients are uniquely honored, adding the medal image to the infobox gives immediate, easy, visual recognition. — ERcheck (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. One of my primary areas of contribution is biographies of U.S. Marines. One of the "standards" that have been applied is including in the infobox the medals in order of precedence only down to the Purple Heart; the remaining awards can be included in the body of the article. Most of the Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients biographies have followed a basic format, that only MOH image in the infobox, but no other medal images. — ERcheck (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Re:Puerto Ricans MIA in Vietnam
Thank you for your opinion. I agree with you 100%, I wasn't too keen on the idea of posting it for FL for the same reasons. About the MoH images, if the community agrres on that there should be no MoH images in the info box, then how about placing an image with the citation, it would be revelant. Tony the Marine05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Re:My talk page
Woody,
You just contacted me about an edit to the Deal Or No Deal UK article via my talk page. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this was caused by an inadvertent problem where I copied the edit I was about to make to the 'battle of the sexes' section in case there should be a network problem (which is a frequent occurrence with my wireless network). There was a network problem (what are the odds) so I simply pressed back on my browser, but it gave me a postdata notice, therefore I pressed cancel, went to the edit page by following the link at the top of the article and quickly pasted, forgetting that the entire article was now being edited an I had overwrote most of the article bar the 'battle of the sexes' section which I had just updated.
After realising my error I promptly reverted the page and edited the 'battle of the sexes' section on it's own, submitted, and it was fixed.
Next time, look before sending me a message. I had reverted the page within 10 seconds of acting. I find it ignorant for you to message me without checking right before submitting your message.
As Fisher was enobled during his first spell at the Admiralty, it is probably more consistent to give him as "Fisher of Kilverstone" (which is perhaps how he is best known now) for both entries. Thoughts? --ROGER DAVIESTALK16:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i was about to leave a note here asking what name you think the template should use. Given the ongoing discussion on the Fisher talk page i was pondering whether to change it. In the end i did and i tried to maintain consistency with the other names by using the "Knight" title. What i see now is that it should really be called Baron Fisher of Kilverstone in line with Cunningham. I think the highest title in the Order of Precedence should be used. Thoughts? Woodym555 16:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Gone with the old Baron Fisher of Kilverstone. All the others use the highest order of precedence although MPs seem to be noted over the top of hereditary titles. Amend as you see fit, looking at it, it might need "The" to be consistent with the other names. Woodym55517:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Woody, my man, thanks for your quick actions and additions re. this article (just a stub I created yonks ago to get rid of red links on Bowie/Pop articles). What is it that draws people like us to defence and rock (I think Nick D. is a member of the Military and Music projects as well). Then again, the riff for "Lust for Life" came from Bowie's interpretation of an armed forces radio theme... Cheers, Ian Rose23:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks (i come bearing food)
Can i just be another person to offer their thanks for all the good work you do at reverting vandalism, especially on my talk page. You already have a few barnstars so i give you something useful :
Peer review
In your edit of 18:19, 10 August 2007, you comment: (major revamp as discussed in peer review, added small description of fleet composition, (needs expansion in places) removed graphs, integrated table)
I don't know what you mean by "Old English" obviously not Old English. "Warrent" - is a misspelling in "British English" and any other kind. The page that appears to be the source for the Warrant text is here, but you will note that the person who created the page has misspelled "Warrant" as "warent"!! in the URL and linked to it here using "warrent", but in the title of the page it uses "warrant". Furthermore while they use "warrent officer " further down the page, in the 3rd paragraph it says "Whereas, We, taking into Our Royal Consideration, that there exists no means of adequately rewarding the individual gallant services, either of officers of the lower grades in Our Naval and Military Servicee [sic], or of warrant and petty officers, ....". The use of 'warrent' within the text is simply a transcription error. Jooler12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Milner FAC
You appear to be active user who knows about getting football articles to featured standard. So I wonder if you could give James Milner a look, as it is currently a FAC. Buc20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah sorry about that. I had previously made the new cricket tournament infobox and had added the correct parameters on the documentation page and then redesigned and moved the old main tournament infobox, but this time without the documentation. Sorry about that one - I think I got carried away with something else at the time. I'll also try and fix the existing cases where the coding has left the infobox blank, once I get home this evening. Thanks for clearing the mess up with the other user. Cheers. mdmanser21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've addressed most of your comments in the John Babcock peer review, but I've got two questions that I left on the review that I was wondering if you could answer? Well okay, one question and one expression of frustration that VAC is too good to respond to my emails... Cheers, CP23:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)
We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
New irc channel
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot16:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Gallery
Mmm, it's pretty tangential, but I suppose a valid argument could be made to include it; so please feel free to list it if you think it would be of interest. Kirill16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I missed the fact that it was an armed vessel; given that fact, I'd say it's as appropriate as any other image of a (sunken) warship would be. Kirill16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Manager templates
What is the current state of play on these templates? We need to move to standardisation ASAP. The Gordon Strachan article is a case in point; there are five templates with three different widths; some collapsible, some not; some with "v.d.e.", some without. --Daemonic Kangaroo17:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
okay I know you've done a lot of work with them! So what's next for villa hows the history sections I might try Villa Park for FA what you reckon? Everlast191023:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey! How you doing? Back to Villa park did you add that info you thought was need for FA? If so shall i put it up for FA also what needs doing for the history sections? Everlast191013:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm feeling incredibly generous today, here's another one. Only the 2nd and 3rd star I've handed out in over a year on Wikipedia. Must be going soft in my old age!
Something to the effect of 'Football manager period in charge' except 'period in charge' should be one word. Thinking...
Alternatively 'Football manager history component' or something. These are really bad names. I'm just thinking out loud now. --Jameboy21:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've tried something out on the Ron Atkinson article, see what you think. Basically, to save space on the page we can wrap all the succession and nav boxes in a show/hide. I got the idea from the Wayne Gretzky article. My preference would be to keep the succession boxes (albeit with effectively duplicate information), as if you only have some of them it seems to jump around too much, and the succession boxes look incomplete. If you disagree strongly I'll revert it back to how it was. --Jameboy14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Citations & ISBNs
Thanks, it is indeed an initial typo 101 for 010 and then repeated copy and pastes. Thanks also for starting to change them, I'll do the rest. Ironic really, given how picky I am about stats etc. cheers, Struway2 | Talk09:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
done them all now, i think. There were more than those quoted, presumably the script User:LA2 was using gave up at 50. My eyes have gone funny. cheers, Struway2 | Talk11:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You certainly lit up my watchlist, yes. Thank you also for the pointer on the ship names, I'm working on that right now. Thanks again for the help. Manxruler23:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions at the peer review. I've taken the bold step of moving the list over to WP:FLC so I'd be grateful for your support/comments etc there. Thanks again. The Rambling Man16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll need your help on Ranulf de Soulis article.
Hello Woodym 555,
First,thanks for your help.
Off topic. One of my pet peeves is confusinrg the UK with England. The US press do it all the time, but I have seen the same error in scholarly works. I am glad we are on the same side on that issue.
RE:Your Welcome.
I had read the five bulleted pages that you note, but I am obviously still feeiing my way. For instance,please confirm that this is the correct way to contact you on your talk page.
Re: Ranulf de Soulis article
I would prefer to keep the cited reference and the explanatory footnotes separate as I have been accustomed to doing, but if that is inappropriate, I am not that rigid.
When I was writing articles in the health sciences, I followed the "Instructions to Contributors" as provided by the editor as carefully as I could. I do not recall being told what style they represented.
Anyway, please let me know what changes need to be made to the cited references. I thought that I had got them pretty well as they should be by using templates, although I was dubious about Op cit and Ibid.
Concerning the explanatory footnotes. I sure would appreciate your help in implementing these.
I am glad we got together. If I can get one article properly written, I shall then be able to move on to others.
One more question. If you simply want to thank someone like you, does one use his/her Talk page , or is there abetter way to do it ?Inver471ness02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you prefer the waltz, or the samba? ~*Grin*~ All the edit conflicts, lol. And don't worry about the RfA thing, you found the info (which is really not exactly prominant anyway) and even if he'd moved it, it wouldn't have been a big deal, so no biggie! You rock for helping out at the help desk! Thanks, Ariel♥Gold23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Gotta go with the jive!! Yes it is hidden away on the WP:RFA/N page isn't it. I am so used to dealing with FA and A-Class nominations which use the whole "archive1" thing. That will teach me to read the smallprint! I do what i can, when i can at the help desk although edit conflicts are a bit of a problem as well!!!! Woodym55523:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
LOL No worries! Jive, huh? I don't think I remember that from dance class, lol. I am better with the waltz, personally, you know, the whole girlie swirlie skirt thing, lol. And yeah I agree actually that the info about repeat RfAs isn't really obvious, not sure how to address that though. And oh, tell me about the edit conflicts on help! So frustrating, I have a pretty slow DSL line, and just loading the page takes me 30 seconds! lol. I've pulled out more than a few hairs trying to just post one comment there, ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks concerning Ranulf de Soulis article
Hello Woodym555,
I am grateful and impressed. Thanks. Now I have to figure out how you did all this, including both finding and inserting wikilinks. I shall study these matters and also look into barnstars. I have a lot to learn.
The two wikilinks that I was going to insert, once I figured out how, are:
Clan Hay
( Incidentally, I need to edit Origins of the Clan because it is not accurate. I presume I add a link to my de Soulis article as part of the editing )
Lord of Liddesdale
( Again, I should edit this article because it is not known whether Ranulf was born in the Cotentin or in England, although his ancestral roots were certainly in the Cotentin. Presumably, I should add a link to my article.)
Can you add these links in my article? Once that is done, I think the article is ready to be moved and I would appreciate your doing so for me.
I shall do the editing in the other two, existing, articles, but shall wait until my article is poperly launched.
His article was created a month ago, but it was sans categories until now. Just letting you know in case you have any material with which to expand it. - Dudesleeper · Talk15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I could go either way, but since I've been including both categories for so long, it's too late to go back. I think it's been discussed somewhere in the discussion archives of WPFootball; if I remember, I'll have a search for it. - Dudesleeper · Talk05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Woody, when you have to move a FAC archive, don't forget to check what links here to update the archive files. Otherwise, the new FAC ends up archived. [7] As GimmeBot gets caught up on all the older FACs, we'll no longer have to do this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Got an Answer
Hi Woody,
EL_C did answer. He never did address wiping out my factual copy or the failure to remove obvious purely commercial inks but I guess he can't bring himself to do that. I just hope he doesn't continue to do that with other new editors. Most of what he does is helpful. At least he has given me some assurance he won't do wholesale reverts on any new copy I might add. I did check out the Aviation Task Force and have already asked for help in dealing with the footnote template. When I have the time to gather the needed reference material I'll be putting up an article on the Boripatra, a Thai designed and built fighter bomber form the 1920s that was quite modern in it's day. Thanks for the help.NYerkes01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: CVF image
No problemo. Thanks for doing those formatted page things - I was figuring out what to do when I saw you'd taken it in hand. ;) John Smith's22:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, moving them to the inactive list is probably the best idea; people have come back from indefinite blocks before, after all. Kirill02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oldelpaso would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Oldelpaso to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Woody. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I did know, I had forgotten, I was getting irritated with the software and I'm glad you where there to sort it!!!! Cheers!!! Pedro : Chat 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
On my talk page I have listed all the Heroes and Villains citations and whether Inglis confirms them, refutes them or otherwise. I'll be making more additions to the article accordingly. --Jameboy15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the star award, much appreciated. The Inglis book is a great resource, although if he is a Villa fan, should we declare his interest? --Jameboy17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Be sure to give warnings when you revert vandalism. If the vandal continues their behavior, they need four warnings on their Talk page before an admin will block them, and if those people, like yourself, who catch their vandalism, don't warn them, they get away with those bad edits till they've gotten four warnings. Thanks for the good work at vandalism fighting, though. :) Corvus cornix22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry I jumped the gun. I just get frustrated when I go to warn a vandal who's been doing it for a while, who hasn't been warned yet. And the admins at WP:AIV are more concerned with counting warnings than with actually dealing with vandals. Corvus cornix22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste05:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Woody, I'm now seeing a thin border around the v-d-e in top-left of every navbox. It only started today and doesn't look very good IMO. It seems to be related to this change? I'm using Firefox btw in case that matters. I was wondering firstly if you are getting the same "problem" and whether you would support reverting the change? I didn't want to steam in there and revert it due the far-reaching consequences of changing such a commonly-used template. --Jameboy20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
OhanaUnited's RfA
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Good luck on your RfA and have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations
I'm pleased to inform you that, consensus having been achieved, you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
My pleaseure - good luck, happy mopping, and if you ever need any advice my talk page or email are just a click away! Neil☎15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done, on your admin! And we got one more to GA shall we try getting VP and the history to FA or get a few more to GA then FA? (if that makes sense) :P once again well done Everlast191010:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay that's fine, ill have a little look on a few of the other articles to get it started! And ill have a little search for the history section. Once again well done Everlast191013:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It's great that you fixed the article! As for my rationale, in the revision before you started editing, I thought the article satisfied WP:CSD: "This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to".
Wasn't it better to tag it for deletion rather than just leave it as it was? — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 16:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, my Villan friend. Your contributions of late have been top notch, and I have indeed aspired to such a level of contribution to WP:FOOTY. By the way, now that I've finished my toadying, you may have spam, but do you have any cheese? :-P - PeeJay17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Victoria Cross for Australia for things needed to be addressed.
Giggy UCP 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Question: indicates the article is at borderline and requires GAR for furthur determination, while the ones marked with 
Not done means it is far from complete. If we list all 22 articles up on GAR it is going to overload the review system. I was taking a reviewer's comments and decide to delist this article in addition to few more.
