User talk:DAFMM/YBackUp

Archive 1 (September 2008 - March 2009).

Archive 2 (April 2009).

Archive 3 (May 2009).

Archive 4 (June 2009).

Archive 5 (July 2009).

Archive 6 (August 2009).

Archive 7 (September 2009).

Archive 8 (October 2009).

Archive 9 (November 2009).

Archive 10 (December 2009).

Archive 11 (January 2010).

Archive 12 (February 2010).

Current talk page.

P. S. All posts are filled by their starting date (e. g. if a comment was posted in May and finished in July it is filed in May, but the conversation is only filed after it has finished).

'Against the Spirit of Mos'!
See this and this you're adding to the Dundonald against the spirit of Mos and wholly wrong in terms of the way titles are used. AllsoulsDay (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald
A tag has been placed on Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign!) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Preview button
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. BarretBonden (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Circular Linking
Please do not keep linking Marques do Maranhão in the Cochrane article. The link just redirects back to the original page which is extremely annoyoing and renders the whole exercise pointless. If you create an article called Marques do Maranhão, then it would be appropriate. Incidentally I notice that you tend to use links excessively. Links should normally only be made once per article and should go to a root article rather than to a disambiguation page or a page which bears no relatrion to the subject under discussion because the word has more than one meaning. Please read this section of the Manual of Style. Thank you. Dabbler (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Cochrane
Hello again and thank you for your edits to Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. Although not compulsory, please consider using the preview button before you save to prevent clogging up the page history and consider providing an edit summary for your edits. Manual of Style and Linking may also provide you with some useful information regarding Wikipedia editing guidelines. I hope this is helpful. Happy editing. BarretBonden (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Cochrane
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sir Thomas Cochrane, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrator
 YOUR USERNAME would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact YOUR USERNAME to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/DAFMM . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Sir John Deed
The tags I added to the article were not intended as criticism they are ways to help improve the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, articles can be written by one person or many but no one editor or group owns any of them. Maintenance tags alert editors to ways they can help improve an article, for example the  tag marks an article as uncategorised, making it more likely that an editor (possibly using the HotCat tool) will come along and add categories. The  tag just indicates that it's a stub class article which most articles are when they are created, some editors spend there time going through Category:Stubs trying to improve and flesh out such articles, the   tag indicates to readers and editors alike that the article could be improved by identifying and adding references that verify the information in the article. If you wish to write something that is - to a point - not as open to peer review and improvement by the community as a whole then I suggest you start articles as a user subpage - this process is explained at User page - basicly you create a page with "User:DAFMM/" in front of the intended title (e.g. User:DAFMM/Sandbox). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

N.: Sir John Deed.

The article 'Sir John Deed' was created at 18:09 on the 14th Aprlil 2009. In the three minutes it took for you to critisize the article I can't be expected to create a detailed article. Please give me and others time to build the article.

With compliments.

User:DAFMM.

Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald
Hello DAFMM, I would like to explain why I have removed your addition of "Sir" before Cochrane's name at the start of this article. As far as I know, "Sir" is not used to address someone who is also a peer – the letters GCB after his name are adequate. WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage also advises that, "'Sir' is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight". Please do not continue to re-insert "Sir" without discussion first or at least an edit summary explaining your edits – it could be considered poor etiquette otherwise.

I have also noticed that you over-use wikilinks (linking plain words and the same word repeatedly within the same section). You may wish to take a look at Linking which states "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section" and advises it is inappropriate to link "items that would be familiar to most readers". I hope this explains why I have removed some of your recent edits. All the best. BarretBonden (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. BarretBonden (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks
Have you read Red link? 'The redlinked ships on the article George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith were unlinked so that the page could be tiied up. This is encouraged by Wikipedia.' No, that is not supported by any sort of policy on wikipedia, and appears to be only your own personal preference. I would suggest reading through relevant policy articles before deciding what it is that wikipedia does and does not encourage. Benea (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Red links
Hello DFMM. Please do not ignore the advice given to you by other editors. As suggested to you previously by Benea, please read Red links before removing any more red links from articles. Red links should be removed if they link to articles that will certainly never be created, but a red link should be allowed to remain if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article. BarretBonden (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Also, when starting a new discussion, it should be placed it at the bottom of the page. Thank you! BarretBonden (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Right Honourable
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.

In Dabbler's edit at 17:47 on 24th April 2009 he says that because he was a Scottish peer. However, the article The Right Honourable on Wikipedia says that any "...barons, viscounts and earls..." in the peerage of the United Kingdom are entitled to it. This means that he was The Right Honourable Thomas Cochrane etc..

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 25 April, 2009 (UTC).


 * Just a guess – perhaps a peerage of Scotland is different to a peerage of the United Kingdom? Anyway, Manual of Style advises that honorific prefixes such as "The Right Honourable" should not be used. BarretBonden (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think though he did have The Right Honourable in front of his name.

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).

Talk Pages
I always sign my edits on talk pages. I don't think I ever have not signed one. Where did you see it? Thanks. With compliments. DAFMM.


 * You do not appear to be using the four tildes (~) which will produce a link to your user page and talk page, and will allow other users to see the time and date when your comment was made. See Signatures for more info. Also remember new discussions should be placed at the bottom of talk pages. Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks. I always sign my posts with a link to my user page. Also, where did you see it? With compliments.DAFMM (talk).


 * I'm not sure you have quite got what I meant. I'm not saying you forgot to sign your post somehwere, just that you may find it easier to just type four tildes  ~  at the end of your posts which is standard practise and will also add a time and date which is useful for other users to see when the comment was made. Have a look here. Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks then. With compliments. DAFMM (talk), 29th April 2009

Sir Thomas Cochrane
Posted to: User: Dabbler.

Cochrane actually called himself Sir Thomas Cochrane aswell as Lord Cochrane.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

He once qouted: "I, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane..." This is in Cochrane The Dauntless by David Cordingly. Also I would be interested to see where it says it is a incorrect usage of his title as I am not to sure whether it is or not.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

I refer you to a number of well known peers who also had knighthoods, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Jervis, 1st Earl of St. Vincent, Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig as you may notice, not one of them have either Sir or Rt. Hon in their Wikipedia articles, because that does not follow the correct style. Now the Rt. Hon. part is due to Wikipedia as English peers should have Rt. Hon. though not I think Scottish peersm but the Sir bit is because it is superseded by the senior title of Earl, Viscount or Duke. Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sir" Thomas
Perhaps he did, a citation would be nice, but that would be incorrect style and therefore not encyclopedic. If Prince Charles decides to call himself Mr Prince, Wikipedia should make a note of it but should not use it in the lead paragraph as his correct style unless he renounced all of his other titles etc. Dabbler (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Titles Box
How do you get a titles box for the Peerage of Brazil?

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).

You can find no evidence...
...because there is none to be found in the public channels. Many have destroyed historical records in an attempt to erase me and my lineage from history, so I have had to take steps to ensure that they shall always fail in their misguided efforts. My power is too great to be undone by such puny demonstrations of lesser people's envy and malice.

And yes, I do love boasting. It's considered a virtue here. Do try it some times—it's very relaxing.

PS: I assume that 81.149.201.240 is you. Please keep in mind that when you leave a message somewhere, it's better to edit/remove it through the same account, or someone might think that vandalism has occurred and act accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 10:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Navy
Posted to: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald talk page.

Should the Navy be spelt with capitals?

With compliments.

DAFMM. —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 9 May, 2009 (UTC).


 * I think it is a matter of context. If it is an abbreviation of the Royal Navy then it should it be capitalised as a proper noun. Example:

British people think that Admiral Nelson is the best known sailor who ever served in the Navy.
 * If it is a general noun used to indicate the naval armed force of a country then it should be lower case. Example: Strategists believe that having a navy to exert sea power is vital to promote a country's military interests. Dabbler (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:UniversityofOxford
May I ask what is up with this account? Do you have a legitimate reason to have an alternate account? And, even if you do, why does this account has a name that implies it is affiliated with the University of Oxford? That is probably a violation of Wikipedia's username guidelines. Unless you have a good reason for having this account, it may have to be blocked if it starts making edits. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On a similar note I am also unclear as the purpose of User:HandyTips. As a help guide it is surely redundant to the copious help sections on wikipedia, and if you wanted to retain this information, it would be better to be in a user subpage rather than setting up another account. Benea (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

N.: UniversityofOxford User.

I have a legitimate claim to the user as nothing says that noone can't contribute with their desired user (University of Oxford for me). However, if it breaks the naming rules then i will have to change it. However, I have decided that I am going to leave the account anyway as I can't see the point of having a 'moribund' account. I was going to use it instead of DAFMM but I think I shall keep DAFMM. The user 'HandyTips' I created to give both me and others a reference to how to use wikipedia. I just thought it might be handy for other users as I often need to use it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Thanks for being so understanding. I will sought out this issue about my other username probably by closing the account (please can you show me how to do that!). I am considering starting a subpage for HandyTips but for the moment it will stay how it is.

Thanks a lot for all your help.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).


 * No problem, I've raised the request over at WP:AN, and I expect we shall get some feedback soon. Benea (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I add that thing to the page.

Thanks very much.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Admiral The Lord Cochrane
To: Benea.

Have you heard of Admiral Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald? He was a Napoleonic sailor and rebel politician. After doing some very detailed research (about 6 months worth!) I think that he should have as much respect as The Viscount Nelson. Do you think we could do something to his Wikipedia page to help? What ado you think?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).


 * Of course, a very interesting character. No doubt you have read David Cordingly's 'Cochrane the Dauntless'? The article on him at the moment is quite good, what areas do you think could be improved? I'm currently working on Nelson himself, but I'll try to help with Cochrane if I can. Benea (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of just generally expanding the page and maybe giving it some sought of authority.

Thanks again.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).

Alternative accounts
Thanks for your explanation. The use of alternative accounts, or sockpuppets are carefully regulated on wikipedia, and can be used in some circumstances. My concern was that you had set up an apparently redundant alternative account to contain your thoughts on the tools and tips to wikipedia. Wikipedia already has numerous help pages and places where the nuances of editing are discussed. If you still wanted to set up an unofficial one of these, setting up a subpage in your userspace would have been the best way to go about it. No one appears to be aware of the existence of User:HandyTips as it has only ever been edited by you, and I can't think how anyone wanting to know about editing wikipedia would know how to find it. User:Rjanag has highlighted a more pressing issue with the account User:UniversityofOxford, which is an apparent violation of the user name policy (specifically 'Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual.') I'd suggest continuing to use only User:DAFMM and only setting up alternative accounts when absolutely necessary, and when you are sure no better alternative exists. I think you would find that this happens only very rarely. On another note, have you thought about archiving talk on your page rather than just deleting it? At the very least you might think about leaving posts on your page for a couple of weeks perhaps, to facilitate discussions. Benea (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DAFMM, if you log on as User:UniversityofOxford you can tag the user page and talk page with db-u1, which will alert administrators to the fact that the user wants those pages deleted. Benea (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Red links
Hello, I have noticed you are continuing to remove all red links from articles despite being asked to stop. Please only remove red links if you believe the linked article will never be created, otherwise leave them in the article. Take a look at Red link - an editing guideline you may find useful. Please also consider using the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up the page history. All the best. BarretBonden (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who told me to stop? One user told me to stop undoing one redlink. Until you give me a legitimate reason to stop I think the best thing to do is to carry on. What about all of the good reasons for undoing them? If there ever is a page created on the subject then it should be made a link again. But until then. With compliments. DAFMM (talk).

Thanks for finnally making a legitimate claim! Well done! I will read the redlinks article. With compliments. DAFMM (talk).


 * You're welcome, but you have been given a link to that page before. BarretBonden (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that them would never even need to be created? DAFMM (talk)


 * If you think an article will never be created for the red link then certainly remove it, but it appears that you are removing all red links from articles just because you think it looks messy. Red links help Wikipedia grow. BarretBonden (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arborology and Dendrology
I noticed you are thinking of starting a page on Arborology. I see there is already a short page on Dendrology which is described as the study of trees and woody plants. I am no expert, but that seems to be the same thing and it was a word I had already heard but I haven't heard of Arborology (though I know of words with the same root such as arborist, arboretum etc). Perhaps you should think of expanding the Dendrology page (and putting a reference to Arborology). If, on the other hand, they are completely separate disciplines, it shows that there is a real need for something to differentiate them! Dabbler (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Dabbler:

N.: Dendrology and Aborology

Dendrology is more about wooded plants as a whole. Arborology is more about trees specifically. There is also dendrochronology which is the subject of aging wooded plants. I didn't know there was one of dendrology so I will expand it.

Thanks a lot. I didn't know!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 25th May 2009.

P. S. I have just started building a page of arborology and have improved the page on dendrology.


 * I've noticed there is an article for Arboriculture. Is this the same thing as Arborology or are they different? Barret (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are slightly different but basically have the same meaning as with arborology.


 * With compliments.


 * DAFMM.

Image captions
Hello I see you are adding a full stop to every image caption you find. I thought you might like to know that, unless the caption is a complete sentence, this is unnecessary. From Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period." Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was here to say the same thing. Adding periods to captions is not necessary. Also, even if it was necessary, massive minor edits such as this can be handled by a bot. Do not concern yourself with such trivial fixes, it is better to concentrate on improving the quality of articles instead of things such as this. But thanks anyway! -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In reply to DAFMM – sorry but you are wrong. Did you even look at MOS:CAPTIONS? Please make an effort to follow Wikipedia's manual of style instead of disregarding it for your own personal preferences. Regards. BarretBonden (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Captions
Technically a caption (e. g. Brighton Pier) is a sentence and so needs a full stop.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk).


 * Hello ErgoSum. In case you hadn't noticed, the above user has created the discussion page User talk:ErgoSum88/Bio. BarretBonden (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed, but it looks like it was a mistake. I think he was trying to leave me a message but clicked on the bio discussion page instead. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI
My copy.

Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello DAFMM. You've been mentioned at WP:ANI. You may wish to add your own comment there. See also a discussion thread at Talk:Boeing_777 about the GA promotion issue. I think that some more steps may be needed before the article can be promoted to A class. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed, I was about to inform DAFMM about the ANI, as a matter of courtesy. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Hello DAFMM. I've replied to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship
Further to the comments above DAFMM, some users have noticed that your edits can be a little unconventional at times. You could consider Mentorship, perhaps by going to Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area, or by approaching users you have interacted with in the past? If you have an interest in aviation, you could post specific questions at WP:AVIATION about how reviews and other processes work, rather than jumping in at the deep end. This would give you the ability to make the maximum use of your time and edits, and ease your interaction with other users. Benea (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you wish, though I would urge you to take on board the concerns of other editors. If in doubt try to ask someone first. The updated link to the section on WP:ANI is here FYI. Benea (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Details on the types of reviews and assessments, and how they are conducted can be found on their pages, WP:PR for peer reviews, WP:GAN for Good Article reviews and WP:FAC for featured articles, for example. It is usually a good idea to consult the guidelines on specific wikiprojects as well to get a general sense of how they grade articles in their remit, and what criteria they use. WP:Aviation's for example is here. Benea (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

N.: Mentorship.

I am going to consider it. Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 3rd June 2009.

P. S. Do you know where I can find some information on reviews etc.? I would be very grateful if you could.

Thanks a lot. I am going to have a read and consider my options.

Thanks for all your help over the past few days.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 3rd June 2009.

Speedy deletion nomination of Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars
A tag has been placed on Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

RadioFan,

You posted the proposed deletion tag on the page Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars just a few minutes after I had created the page! If you carry on doing this you will have deleted so many pages before they can even start editing them. Just becuase people like you have a lot of time on your hands others of us do actually try and work! You can't go around complaining about other people who are innocently trying to improve and expand Wikipedia. Here are some other posts from other poor users who you have harassed:

I am working on the page "Mark Batterson" Can you let me finish? Infoguy2020 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC) - Matt aka infoguy2020
 * discussion of the Mark Batterson has been moved to your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Annie Mumolo article? -ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no indication of how she is notable. Simply being an actress isn't sufficient.  Even appearing in some well known films isn't sufficient either.  Based on the roles listed here, she appears to be an extra in most of the films and TV shows she's appeared in.  See WP:ENTERTAINER for guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, all of her voice over works listed under "Television" are main/recurring roles. -ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These dont seem very significant. Let's take it to AFD for other editors to weigh in.--RadioFan (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You must have tagged this article within a few minutes of my posting an initial version, which seems a little harsh. I was hoping to return to this tomorrow but in the circumstances thought I had better add to it tonight. Please consider removing the tags. Exclaim (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article lacks references demonstrating its notability and someone who "sporadically works" doesn't sound very notable either.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are being unfair and a right nusaince.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * The article is essentially empty. Just doing some house cleaning.  Also please do not remove deletion tags when adding the hangon tag.--RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Your user page isn't "very significant" either but administrators don't delete it.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * I'm sorry if this upset you but my user page isn't at issue here. The intent isn't to harass but is part of new page patrolling. New pages which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines are tagged by volunteers like myself, then reviewed by administrators who make the final determination if an article should be deleted or handled otherwise. Your article is very short, essentially restating the title. There is no way to know if you plan to further expand it or simple create a single sentence and forget it. So it is tagged for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Maybe you should give users enough time to actually expand from the title in the future.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

P. S. Bugger the article. It is to much hassle to try and start an article because of timewasters like you.

User:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars
I have moved the article to your userspace for now where you can work on it as much as you like until it is ready for mainspace. Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 18:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk), 6th July 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

Finished
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

Don't delete it. It has taken me nearly to hours to research and make very efficient.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 6th July 2009.

Copy 1
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

This article lists notable officers that served in the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) in the Royal Navy.

They are ordered by immediate rank (eg. Admiral and Vice Admiral not Vice Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the White) and then by surname.

Officers with flag ranks
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Parker, 1st Baronet (promoted to Admiral of the Fleet in 1799)
 * Admiral of the Fleet John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent (made Admiral of the Fleet in 1801)
 * Admiral Sir George Cockburn, 10th Baronet (later Admiral of the Fleet, Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom and First Sea Lord and was also active in War of 1812)
 * Admiral Sir William Cornwallis (later Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom)
 * Admiral George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith (retired as Admiral of the Red)
 * Admiral John James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier (later promoted to Admiral of the Fleet)
 * Admiral Edward Pellew, 1st Viscount Exmouth (later Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom and Admiral of the Red)
 * Admiral James Saumarez, 1st Baron de Saumarez (later Admiral of the Red, General of Marines and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom as well as Commander-in-Chief of the Baltic Fleet)
 * Admiral Sir Edward Thornbrough (retired as Admiral of the White)
 * Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Forrester Inglis Cochrane (acted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Fleet and retired as Admiral of the White in 1824)
 * Vice Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood (died with the rank of Vice Admiral of the Red in 1810)
 * Vice Admiral Eliab Harvey (promoted to full admiral in 1819, knighted in 1825 and retired as Admiral of the White)
 * Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté (died in 1805 with the rank of Vice Admiral of the White)

Officers with non-flag ranks
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * Captain Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, 1st Marquess do Maranhão (later Admiral of the Red and Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom aswell as leading other navies through their countries liberation including being Vice Admiral of Chile and Admiral of the Greek Fleet)
 * Captain Thomas Masterman Hardy, 1st Baronet (died in 1839 as Vice Admiral of the Blue, he also was the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, First Naval Lord (1830 - 1834) and was knighted)
 * Captain Sir Frederick Lewis Maitland (retired in 1839 as Rear Admiral of the Red and knghted (K.C.B.))
 * Commander Frederick Marryat (retired as captain in 1829 and was later a successful author, as well as the inventor of the lifeboat)

Tony Marchington
Q.:

Who is he? I would really like to know. Did he go to Oxford like Graham Richards?

Also have you heard of the forgotten hero Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald?

Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 13th July 2009.

''Who is he? I would really like to know. Did he go to Oxford like Graham Richards?''
 * I really don't know. I was only adding Graham Richards as another famous Old Birkonian.

Also have you heard of the forgotten hero Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald?
 * I will look into him when I return from vacation.

JMcC (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Marquess of Maranhão
He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD


 * my reference gives the current Earl of Dundonald as Marquess do Maranhao, and as wiki is about refernces that matter is clear to me. Do you have a reference to say Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and for this title in perticular? Where did you get the information that Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I may ensure you that almost all Brazilian titles, created after its independence, were not hereditary, marquessate of Maranhão included. Basically, only royal titles were hereditary. You may check, for instance, the Archivo Nobiliarchico Brazileiro, one of the main works regarding the Brazilian nobility. There is no 2nd Marquess of Maranhão, and the book was edited in 1918. As well, as you may check along the book, almost all titles had just one noble. The reason is that these titles were, in general, bought by rich people. The titles with more than one entitled are just because they were bought. Both emperors were not favorable for hereditary titles because the Brazilian nobility was, somewhat, new-born and artificial (most were not from really noble families). I will try to find some references appart the Archivo, but this is a good one, indeed. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In time: this assumption of the marquessate by the earls of Cochrane is really, really surprising for me!!!!!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not very good, but GeneAll states just one marquess. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This reference is used in the Portuguese article about Brazilian nobility: ("Diferença das 2 nobrezas: portuguesa é hereditária e a brasileira não tem hereditariedade")
 * I think, by what this article implies, who started the tradition of non-hereditary Brazilian titles was John VI, when he scaped to América and entitled many of the rich men of the colony. Makes sense, since the titles he created, by what I could verify, had just one entitled. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More: this site is a digitalization of the Archivo with some additions of genealogists and enthusiasts. No mention about the title being herditary.
 * Carlos Eduardo Barata e AH Cunha Bueno. Dicionario das Dicionário das Famílias Brasileiras, articles: Maranhão, Marquês; família Cochrane. No mention that the title was hereditary.
 * I really think someone should call the clan Cochrane to reason... --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some more references
 * Almanak Laemmert (last one, edited 1889): no new Marquess of Maranhão.
 * As barbas do imperador (ISBN 85-7164-837-9): pages 166, 177, 180, 192 – Brazilian titles given to nobles were not hereditary.
 * Heráldica (ISBN 86-2295): no reference to hereditary titles.


 * I may just assume that the marquessate of Maranhão certainly is not a hereditary title, since it would appear in any of these references, seen the exception it would be among other Brazilian titles.
 * What the clan Cochrane may allege to be their titles cannot be stronger than specialized works of the theme (the Brazilian nobility). They would not be the only case of false claims about some title.
 * The best reference would be the register in the Cartório de Nobreza, but I cannot say if it yet exists, neither how to reach it in the Arquivo Nacional.
 * I am going to remove the succession box until better references can state that the title is hereditary. --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the research. DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.


 * DAFMM, I am really interested in research this subject a little bit more – the Cochranes would be the only descendants from Brazilian nobles who would be using a Brazilian title nowadays (appart from the imperial family). This is really interesting and, by the other hand, would imply in a greater discussion involving other articles – like this. If the title is not valid, being simply alleged by the family, than it should not figure in Wikipedia the way it is. Could someone enter in contact with them, trying to understand the validity of the marquessate? All the best. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

talk pages
Please do not create talk pages consisting solely of your username, even if you do blank them a few minutes later. DS 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? 21st July 2009. P. S. Do you speak English? Well write as though you do.


 * First, insulting people who are trying to give you advice is not friendly, as anative speaker of English, I find DS's usage to be perfectly acceptable. Secondly when I see a non-redlink Talk page in an article I will often look at it to see what has been discussed. if I then find that someone has blanked it after just putting in their username, that is a waste of my time and is very discourteous to other users. Please refrain from that sort of rude behaviour. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I may have merely retaliated from being insulted. DAFMM.


 * It's the way of the world.


 * I start talk pages to open up the page for the article for other users (it's the first thing I do when I start a page) and also to pick up a few more edits. I put 'DAFMM' as it will not let me start the page (not that I know of) without something. Sometimes I just put a random word. 25th July 2009.
 * It is also very poor wiki-etiquette and time wasting for people. If they want to open up a Talk page, they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. As it is you waste other people's time unnecessarily. Please reconsider your policy. Dabbler (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will then. I was just doing it for convenience. DAFMM, 28th July 2009.
 * Thank you Dabbler (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and I note that you've continued doing this, even though it's been explained to you why you shouldn't, and even though you agreed to stop. I don't want to impose disciplinary measures on you, but I will if you continue with this sort of nonsense. DS (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

DragonflySixtyseven,

I did not say I would stop doing it.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2 August 2009.


 * I find your rather deceptive wording above to be very unethical. If you persist in behaviour that the Wikipedia community considers to be objectionable then you must expect to suffer consequences. Many people have tried to guide you by inoffensive methods and time-consuming explanations of the ways of Wikipedia, but you treat us with contempt and try and weasel out of criticism by playing with words. I personally would like to have you as a continuing contributor, but not at all costs and the expense of my self-respect. Dabbler (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Cochrane is very interesting.

DAFMM (talk), 14th July 2009.

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DAFMM
From Dabbler's talk page.

You seem to have had better luck in reaching DAFMM to be reasonable than I did. He hasn't stopped generating those crap talkpages; I've had to delete three that he created after his conversation with you.

As I said to him, I don't want to impose disciplinary measures on him, but I will if I have to.

(Also... I have no idea where he got this idea that I don't speak English? Is there anything in my word choice that makes it seem like I'm not a native speaker?) DS (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages (DAFMM)
DragonflySixtyseven,

I did not say I would stop doing it.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2 August 2009.

Edit counters
Hi.

Sorry to bother you, but for a while now edit counters are failing, i was wondering why is happening and if could be fixed?. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

I know about the edit counters and I don't know why they have failed. If you go onto the Luxo contributions it gives you all the edits for all the other Wikimania sites just not English Wikipedia. They have been down for about a week now I would say.

I will try and make a few enquiries.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 5th August 2009.


 * They appear to be working again but only until July, 31, any edit into august aren`t recorded, weird. Zidane tribal (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It will be fixed soon enough then. DAFMM (talk), 6th August 2009.

Post-nominal titles
Hello. I have no wish to enter into an edit war with you so could you please stop inserting a full stop between the letters of GCB and ODM in the Thomas Cochrane article. Post-nominal initials are not usually written like this on Wikipedia. See the many other biographies containing GCB, KCB, OBE, etc. Thanks. Barret (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why?
 * Because that is what many hundreds of Wikipedia editors have decided over a number of years is the style to be used and we wish to maintain a consistent approach in all the articles so they look and read the same. If you cannot accept this consensus, then perhaps you should consider what you are doing here. Dabbler (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't there room for change and improvement? DAFMM (talk), 6th August 2009.
 * Of course there is always an opportunity to make changes and improvements. However, the process is not by one person unilaterally deciding to make a change and editing disruptively. The consensus for a new style must be established by discussion and agreement with other Wikipedia editors. The Manual of Style explains the current consensus. You should discuss this subject there on the Talk page and see if people can be persuaded to change. Dabbler (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Dabbler. Also, I have your talk on my watchlist DAFMM, so please do not copy and paste this discussion back to my talk page again or copy my comments over to other user's talk pages. Barret (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied it onto your talk pages so that you had a copy. I will be commenting on the Manual of Style. Thanks. DAFMM.
 * Further to these comments, please do not insert periods into other abbreviations such as HMS, as you did here and here for example. This is specifically mandated against in the relevant manual of style. If a standardised style appears to exist it's probably best to keep to it, or to investigate further to see if you can find where the standard has been laid out. If you have trouble doing this, ask someone, and then raise the issue in a relevant place if you want to propose changes. But please don't continue to do perform edits that other users have asked you not to until the matter has been cleared up. As you can see it can create unnecessary tensions. There is no real rush to fix everything immediately on wikipedia, so you can afford to be thorough in your understanding of policies and the gathering of consensus. Benea (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (I too have watchlisted this page, so you don't need to post this back to me either). Benea (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the advice given here on your talk, and consensus at the discussion you started at Manual of Style favouring the omission of full stops from initialisms, you continue to insert them between the post nominal titles in this article . This is not the first time you have engaged in an edit war on this article . Please cease this disruptive type of editing or I will have no choice but to request administrator intervention. Barret (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have created a report at the edit warring noticeboard here. It is not my intention to have you blocked, I am much more interested in your editing adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Barret (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your sig at MOS talk
Please note that it's easy to tap in four tildes to render the date automatically; and that the "th", "nd", "rd, are now not generally in use, especially on WP. Thanks. Tony   (talk)  09:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. DAFMM.

MOS
Ok. DAFMM.
 * He says, without the auto-sig, which was the subject of my note. Tony   (talk)  09:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Marquess of Maranhão
As my talk page is on your watchlists what do you think? There are copies on the Clan Cochrane and Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald talk pages.

From article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.

He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD

Administrator's Incidents Talk Pages
Posted on: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542.

Could we use this talk page to discuss incidents about ourselves?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 4th August 2009.

P. S. Posted here on 10th August 2009.

Recent Talk Page Edits
Benea and BarretBonden,

Sorry for the recent edits on my talk page which is on your watchlist. I have been retrieving all of my discussions since I joined Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree that some are very interesting!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I copied this here incase you haven't got it on your watchlist anymore.

adminship
Just so you know you need to transclude your request onto the main RfA page. See the guide at WP:RFA. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Ironholds,

Thanks very much for the information. Hopefully I will be successfull! Nowonder you got a Barnstar for kindness!!!

Thanks again.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.


 * I've got to advise you that I honestly don't think you'll pass - the bar we set for adminship here is very high. You're welcome to try, but at the best of times RfA can be a gruelling process, and I'd hate to see you dissuaded from editing by a bad experience there. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. I don't think so either. It will be a laugh! I can always try again! DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009. P. S. If I fail is there anything less competitive I can help out in?
 * It isn't competitive so much as difficult. You're welcome to help out anywhere, really - the work you're doing on RN officers seems good, although you need to use referencing. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know!!! The problem is is that I have used my on knowledge! When I have a spare minute I am going to do it! It's just getting around to it! I am a busy man. DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.
 * Fair enough. If you still want to run you need to transclude your Request for Adminship, btw. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My Adminship
Everyone,

I am applying for administrator status here. Please help me and cast your opinion.

Thanks for your opinion and time.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.

P. S. 'Cast your opinion' ends on Thursday 20th August 2009.


 * I'm just curious – why doesn't the time come up when you do your signature? By the way, don't be too disheartened by the RfA. :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have closed your RfA prematurely, as this is not the right time for the community to support you. Don't be disheartened; many of our finest admins have failed their first RfAs. Best of luck for the future. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Symonds reply:

N.: 'DAFMM Administrator'

Very civil considering you just closed it down! What a suprise you got your own day!!! It's like me saying to you don't be to disheartened it isn't my fault even though I admitted to closing down your account!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

B. hotep reply:

N.: DAFMM Signature

I don't sign mine with the time, just the date.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

Edit warring complaint
Hello DAFMM. An editor has made a complaint about you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

N.: 'DAFMM Edit Warring'.

Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?

Warning re your style edits at Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald
The above Edit Warring case has been closed, and here's the result. Many people have told you that your preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. You may be blocked if you continue to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless you get consensus first. This includes any usage of 'Sir' that does not comport with the WP:MOS, and the insertion of periods in post-nominal initialisms such as OBE. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DAFMM reported by User:BarretBonden (Result: Warned) (My Incident Copy)

 * Page:
 * User:

The editor in question began adding full stops to initialisms on 3 August and has resisted attempts to remove them ever since. I contacted him on his talk page and two other editors also advised him the edits were against a long standing consensus. It was suggested he create a discussion to establish a new consensus at Manual of Style. He created a discussion but the consensus favoured the omission of full stops from initialisms. He has since failed to engage in dialogue and refuses to heed the advice given to him. It is not the first time he has edit warred on this article: previously he repeatedly and incorrectly added the honorific prefix 'Sir'. Despite efforts to discuss these edits with him, he blanked his talk page and continued to revert until given a 3rr warning. DAFMM gave his views on resolving editing conflicts at his recent reqeust for adminship. Barret (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Warned. Many people have told DAFMM that his preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. I have warned him that he may be blocked if he continues to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless he gets consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like the pillory here! You're 'warned' he's given '15 hours' you 24 etc.! It's 'Pillory Club'! DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009. P. S. I will be taking this further. See EdJohnston's talk page.

DAFMM Edit Warring
Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?
 * Hello DAFMM. The result of the WP:AN3 complaint is here. I hope you are not surprised that Wikipedia has a 'house style' that we try to use in all of our articles. Since a common style is recommended, it may come to the attention of administrators that someone is trying to pioneer a brand-new style. (Or, it might be an old-fashioned style that Wikipedia has decided not to use here). EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You can only try. I have also started that page at User: DAFMM/AdministratorPowers. DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Good Barrister
Posted on the talk page of: User: BarretBonden.

You would make a good barrister - I liked your 'prosecution' (!) against me on my edit warring. It was actually very good.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.

FYI User:DAFMM (My Copy)
Just coming across a set of unusual edits from this editor, see difs: where he made an article an A-class, claiming to be Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation and campaign to put periods on non-sentence form captions. Can an editor please check some of the dubious claims made?


 * He's a rather eccentric editor in some senses. His grasp of policy is somewhat...limited, and occasionally he sets off making edits that he thinks are in line with the MOS, but in some cases are directly against it (undoing redlinks to 'tidy up' pages was another). He also seems to dislike it when talkpages don't exist for articles, so he edits something in and then immediately deletes it, as here for example. He has a sockpuppet called User:HandyTips (and had one called User:UniversityofOxford until that was pointed out to him as probably being a bad idea) that suggests he hasn't grasped the use of socks, or subpages, or the utility of wiki's own help pages. He also makes a lot of small edits to articles, to link and unlink terms, make small stylistic or punctuation changes. But I think he acts in good faith most of the time. In this instance I think he recently joined WP:AVIATION, saw a request to review Boeing 777 and did so, not realising that there was a process to go through, not realising that that signing in some sort of semi official capacity was a bad idea, etc. I don't think any administrator action is needed, perhaps just some firm and maybe intensive mentoring. Benea (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and that is why I brought the issue here and thought that rather than an admin, maybe an experienced editor would be the best person to sort out some of the odd submissions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC).
 * I think a couple of users now have started to pick up on his activities. As you're a member of WP:AVIATION perhaps you could help him through how to review things properly (and why perhaps its best not to try to claim specific status in a wikiproject), or give him pointers as to areas he could help out in? I'll keep an eye on the contributions too, but I think he's genuinely keen to learn, even if you do have to reinforce the points sometimes. Maybe we could suggest to him that he consider Mentorship, and direct him to try Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area if he feels so inclined. Benea (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think DAFMM would certainly benefit from wiki-adoption or something similar. You can see from my talk page and his talk page history (he usually deletes comments from his talk page) I have had some interaction with DAFMM, usually concerning minor MOS issues with his edits. He gets a little bit defensive and it often takes several messages to get my point across but I believe his edits are made in good faith and he is keen to help improve wikipedia. He just needs to start making use of wikipedia's help pages and take on board the advice given to him by other editors. BarretBonden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What if they are wrong? DAFMM (talk), 27th July 2009.

Administrator Powers
I have started a page here seeing how many people beleive that administrators are unjustly using their powers against other editors. Please cast your opinion on it's talk page.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Administrator Rights
From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers

Please put your name down on this page if you think administrators are using there powers against other users. Are they also giving they're friends a lift up? Giving Wikipedia a community of administrator mates who meet in their local every night to discuss who to ruin next? Please discuss these questions on the talk page and cast your opinion and expierences. In my opinion Wikipedia is corrupt.

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

List:

1. DAFMM (talk), leader, 16th August 2009.

Administrator Rights Talk
From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers

Please discuss your opinions here.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research
Posted to: Tony1.

Thanks for all the research. You should be given one of them 'barnstars'! DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Offline
I will be offline for about 2 weeks now. Please do not hesitate to leave me messages here and I will try and get back to them as quick as I can. I will hopefully still be able to check it on a friends computer everyday still.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao
Posted to: Tonyjeff.

I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research
Posted to: Tony1.

Wrong user! Sorry. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

Barnstar
Posted to: Tonyjeff (NOT ME!).


 * DAFMM, thanks for your help!!! =) I have already posted a message at the Peerage forum, and contacted a few more sites (like Clan Cochrane in America). Also, what is this thing about Barnstar? Have I earned one? Cheers! --Tonyjeff (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You've done enough work already! DAFMM (talk), 18th August 2009.

Native Speaking
Posted to: DragonflySixtySeven.

If you had enough sense to realise that I put that to get you back not as a true statement. I placed it there because you didn't use correct grammar (not capitals etc.).

DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.

An exciting opportunity to get involved!
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Return
I'm back!!!

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Stock Exchange Scandal
Posted: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Marquess do Maranhao Research
Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.

How are you doing with it? Now that I am back 'online' I can start to help you a bit more.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.


 * Hi; it is not very good… No one answered me, so I am trying to find in any other source. Clan Cochrane of America, Peerage.com and False Titles.com did not answer. If you have any idea, please tell me. I think we should expose this problem in other Cochranes' articles, in order to correct that Maranhão peerage. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just been researching it and found that the list of the Earls of Dundonald on the Earl of Dundonald article is saying that it is hereditary (I could have made them edits a while back). I don't want to change it until we have firm evidence and sources. I have made a comment on it's talk page, in reply to Czar Brodie. DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.


 * I still can't find anything. I did think of contacting The Earl of Dundonald (I found his address) but he will just claim it is hereditary (politician!). Then we have got people in the Brazillian government but that is going to be a bugger! We'll have to think differently to the usual roots (great!). DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Marquess of Maranhão
From: Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

From article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.

He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD


 * my reference gives the current Earl of Dundonald as Marquess do Maranhao, and as wiki is about refernces that matter is clear to me. Do you have a reference to say Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and for this title in perticular? Where did you get the information that Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that can be relied upon. It doesn't even spell his correct titles correctly! With etc.. DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Stock Exchange Scandal
Posted: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:
 * Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, ''
 * That is true
 * although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
 * but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
 * The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
 * Where is the evidence?
 * Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
 * Some historians believe = weasel words
 * In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
 * Citation
 * Who was Charles Grenville?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * What kind of bias might he had have?
 * By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
 * he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
 * Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

English
Posted to: Toddy1.

If you supposedly don't speak English you wrote that very well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Thomas Cochrane Bias
Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.

Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Conversation:

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:
 * Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, ''
 * That is true
 * although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
 * but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
 * The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
 * Where is the evidence?
 * Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
 * Some historians believe = weasel words
 * In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
 * Citation
 * Who was Charles Grenville?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * What kind of bias might he had have?
 * By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
 * he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
 * Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Cochrane Bias
Please see what I forwarded onto other editors.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Content forwarded:

Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.

Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Conversation:

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:
 * Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, ''
 * That is true
 * although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
 * but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
 * The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
 * Where is the evidence?
 * Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
 * Some historians believe = weasel words
 * In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
 * Citation
 * Who was Charles Grenville?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * What kind of bias might he had have?
 * By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
 * he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
 * Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Forcefullness
Posted to: Toddy1.

Stop accusing other editors with edit warring. It is uncivil. It is you who are reverting back to edits nobody agreed upon: edits that concentrate on merely removing referenced material, just because one editor doesn't like a respected author mentioning a fact. Removing a referenced source without discussing it, based on own OR is unacceptable. It is very uncivil then to accuse others of edit warring, while you are essentially doing it - over a tiny issue that has very little relevance to the whole article, and which is only important to some fanatics. Who the heck cares wheater the PoW had 2, 3,4 or 5 guns operating. The point is that it limped away because most of them were not working. Kurfürst (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you did not notice that three other editors had developed an improved text. So saying edits nobody agreed upon is not really true.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The text was hardly improved, it was merely a resulting in a wall of text due to simple reason that a single fanatic was unwilling to accept a simple fact, and was trying to find excuses to remove it. Time after time. Now the silly thing contested is gone, and the article is not missing anything with that. Problem solved - do you really think that devoting some 3000 character wall of nonsense, that violated wiki principles on several accounts (OR, synthesis, primary sources etc.), much of it being the fringe theory of a single editor, was actually an improvement to the article...? Wiki says identify common points, but what was produced there was merely tit-for-tat arguements over a non-issue. Kurfürst (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be as forceful and commanding in your bossiness.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Rare?
Posted: Titan Beetle, talk page.

How rare are they?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Titan Beetle
Posted: WikiProject: Arthropods, talk page.

How rare are they?

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Bias
From: BarretBonden.

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion, DAFMM. I have replied on the article's talk page. Barret (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maranhão
Hehe, yeah, I think that mr. Dundonald would not loose his title so easily, but at least you could listen his side of the story so we may try to understand on which basis they claim this title. Perhaps, he has some sort of document – the point is that the question must be as technical as possibel, in order to avoid political answers.

The Brazilian government will not be able to answer it, other than they do not recognize any Imperial title – here we have a terrible lack of historical memory…

I am going to reach some monarchist and genealogist circles here. I know also that the last Brazilian King of Arms did have a notebook (a scrap of a would-be-book) and it is at the Arquivo Nacional (biggest Brazilian library, in Rio de Janeiro). It is very, very difficult to access it, but it's another possibility. Perhaps, mr. Sainty? Let's keep in touch. --Tonyjeff (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

It's all pushing it though!!! I might try The Earl of Dundonald. DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009. P. S. Let's keep in touch anyway!

Please do not copy whole sections to my Talk page
Please do not copy whole sections from other Talk pages into my Talk page. It is quite unnecessary, first of all as a regular editor I am likely to be watching the page and so can see the edits made to the article Talk page. If you want to draw my attention to the conversation, all you have to do is put a short note on my page asking me to look at the article Talk page.

As I do watch Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, I did see the comments made there about the possible bias over the trial. I have not yet commented because I am trying to find my source books (you will notice that I put in the fact that his grandson was given £40000 in compensation for the false conviction and I sourced it). If and when I find my sources and no one else has added references, then I will do so. In the meantime, your time would be better spent finding references that state that Ellenborough was biassed and that Cochrane was unfairly convicted and adding them to the article to refute the suggestion rather than arguing with people on the Talk page. Dabbler (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

I placed it on your talk page to ask for your advice and so that you had a copy of it there. I thought it would be more convenient for you to be a ble to see it in front of you than having to go off and find the talk page in question. I placed it on your talk page because I wondered what you thought as you are a 'regular editor'.

I reply to the 'arguing' I was only getting my opin ion on the subject accross.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

Cochrane Bias Again
Posted to: Talk page of Toddy1.

BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Roger Davies talk 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Check
Check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.201.240 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Marquess do Maranhao Hereditary?
Posted to the talk pages of: Earl of Dundonald, Archibald Cochrane, 9th Earl of Dundonald, Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald and Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald.

All,

After some detail research conducted by both myself and mainly Tonyjeff we have discovered that much evidence points to the title not being hereditary. We therefore ask for your advice on the subject as all the articles related to the Earls of Dundonald (etc.) describe it as being hereditary. What do you all think and what information have you got?

Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Nickname
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

The lead says Cochrane was kown as "El Diablo" ("the devil") by his enemies in South America. However, this is unsourced and in Brian Vale's book Cochrane in the Pacific: fortune and freedom in Spanish America (page 203) he writes apart from Cochrane's claims there is no evidence he was ever called this. Interestingly, Vale says the only nickname recorded was "el metalico lord" which translates as the "count of cash" or the "lord of bullion". Barret (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I found it on a website about the liberation of South America. However, after searching the internet I can't find it again! I will keep on trying. DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.


 * I have just found it again here. DAFMM (talk), 3rd September 2009.


 * Thanks for the link. Unfortunately I don't think the website can be considered a reliable source because basically its just a book review of Cochrane: Britannia's Sea Wolf written on a self published website. Ideally the page number where this nickname is mentioned in the book needs to be provided before it can be included. Or perhaps another reliable source can be found. If a source is provided, it should be made clear it is dubious whether this nickname was ever actually used by his enemies. Barret (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok then. Thanks. I will do some more research. DAFMM (talk), 3rd September 2009.

Maranhao Postings
Posted to: Tonyjeff.

Tonyjeff,

I have just posted this. Please see the copy. I don't think it will help much though. However, it does let everyone know.

With etc..

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Posted to the talk pages of: Earl of Dundonald, Archibald Cochrane, 9th Earl of Dundonald, Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald and Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald.

All,

After some detail research conducted by both myself and mainly Tonyjeff we have discovered that much evidence points to the title not being hereditary. We therefore ask for your advice on the subject as all the articles related to the Earls of Dundonald (etc.) describe it as being hereditary. What do you all think and what information have you got?

Thanks a lot.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

'El Diablo'
Posted: BarretBonden.

I found it on a website about the liberation of South America. However, after searching the internet I can't find it again! I will keep on trying. DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Statistics Test
! Admin Statistics

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Statistics Test 2
! User Statistics

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Statistics Test 3


! User Statistics

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Confirmed Users
Posted to: X! (Soxred93).

X!,

While using your edit count tool (Soxred93) I came across 'Is X an Admin' and found it very useful. While scanning over the options I found one that I had never heard of before, 'confirmed users'. Is this related to autoconfirmed users?

Thanks very much.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

Retired Userbox
For when I finally get stopped!!!!

DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.

First Naval Lord?
From: First Sea Lord.

DAFMM (talk), 8th September 2009.

Where does the term First naval Lord come from? Reading the article it refers to the First Sea Lord as the job position title, except in one place. What is the story here as I have never heard of the First Naval Lord until I came to this page. Dabbler (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First Sea Lord vs First Naval Lord
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.

First Sea Lord vs First Naval Lord
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.

I checked on First Sea Lord and it seems to be contradictory, it refers to the title as First Sea Lord being used from 1828 but then heads the section listing them up from 1828-1904 i.e. until Jackie Fisher as "First Naval Lord" with no explanation. My apologies for being abrupt in the Edit summary but it puzzles me as I have never heard the term First Naval Lord used anywhere. Dabbler (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For all that, Thomas John Cochrane's article makes no mention of him being First Sea Lord, nor is he listed on the First Sea Lord article. Lavery and Rodger in their studies of the Nelsonic-era navy make note that there was not yet no established position of 'First Sea Lord' (the term 'First Naval Lord' does not appear). Benea (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't 'First Naval Lord' used for the 'First Sea Lord' from 1828 - 1904? Isn't that what it says on the First Sea Lord article, though I am no expert. With etc.. DAFMM (talk), 3rd September 2009.


 * The actual quote from First Sea Lord is "The title of First Sea Lord was first given to the senior Naval Lord on the Board of Admiralty in 1828." Thomas John Cochrane does not appear on the First Lord of the Admiralty. He was Vice-Admiral of the United Kingdom. Dabbler (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The list on First Sea Lord changes with no explanation in 1904, having previously stated the term was 'First Sea Lord' from 1828. The First Sea Lord article originally ran as 'First Sea Lords' from 1828 to the present. User:Choess split the article at some point into pre and post 1904 (i.e. around the Fisher reforms) and the title for the pre-1904 post became 'First Naval Lords'. (Another odd split occurs in 1964, leaving David Luce having held the post from 1963 to 1964, and again from 1964 to 1966. Was there a substantive change in the title rather than just the duties, which necessitated him relinquishing and then taking the post again? If so this should be mentioned). While the 'first naval lord' does crop up to describe these individuals and their duties, all sorts of pre-1904 documents call the apparent first holder of the post, Sir George Cockburn, as 'First Sea Lord'. 'First naval lord' seems to be a variation on this, not the official title itself. Cockburn's biography by Morriss used 'First Sea Lord', but 'first naval lord' (the latter only ever in lower case, indicating a description rather than title). Benea (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion would seem to be more appropriate at Talk:First Sea Lord. I think though that the reference to Thomas John Cochrane being Admiral of the Fleet or First Sea Lord or whatever should be changed as he does not seem to have ever held any of those posts. Dabbler (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He clearly didn't, Laughton's entry in the OBND lists all his titles but not the Sea Lord. I'll move the discussion, this has clearly broadened into a wider examination of the title. Benea (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In think everyone seems to be thinking different on this one! Why don't we all go away and do some research and then agree on what we have found. Then we will be able to tidy up all the related articles. DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

Talkback
For the record:

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

Administrator Rights
From: /Archive 6.

From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers

Please put your name down on this page if you think administrators are using there powers against other users. Are they also giving they're friends a lift up? Giving Wikipedia a community of administrator mates who meet in their local every night to discuss who to ruin next? Please discuss these questions on the talk page and cast your opinion and expierences. In my opinion Wikipedia is corrupt.

Thanks.

DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

Administrator Rights Talk
From: Archive 6.

From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers

Please discuss your opinions here.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

From: Archive 5.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

Finished
From: Archive 5.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

Don't delete it. It has taken me nearly to hours to research and make very efficient.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 6th July 2009.

Copy 1
From: Archive 5.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.

This article lists notable officers that served in the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) in the Royal Navy.

They are ordered by immediate rank (eg. Admiral and Vice Admiral not Vice Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the White) and then by surname.

Officers with flag ranks
From: Archive 5.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Parker, 1st Baronet (promoted to Admiral of the Fleet in 1799)
 * Admiral of the Fleet John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent (made Admiral of the Fleet in 1801)
 * Admiral Sir George Cockburn, 10th Baronet (later Admiral of the Fleet, Rear-Admiral of the United Kingdom and First Sea Lord and was also active in War of 1812)
 * Admiral Sir William Cornwallis (later Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom)
 * Admiral George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith (retired as Admiral of the Red)
 * Admiral John James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier (later promoted to Admiral of the Fleet)
 * Admiral Edward Pellew, 1st Viscount Exmouth (later Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom and Admiral of the Red)
 * Admiral James Saumarez, 1st Baron de Saumarez (later Admiral of the Red, General of Marines and Vice Admiral of the United Kingdom as well as Commander-in-Chief of the Baltic Fleet)
 * Admiral Sir Edward Thornbrough (retired as Admiral of the White)
 * Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Forrester Inglis Cochrane (acted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Fleet and retired as Admiral of the White in 1824)
 * Vice Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood, 1st Baron Collingwood (died with the rank of Vice Admiral of the Red in 1810)
 * Vice Admiral Eliab Harvey (promoted to full admiral in 1819, knighted in 1825 and retired as Admiral of the White)
 * Vice Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté (died in 1805 with the rank of Vice Admiral of the White)

Officers with non-flag ranks
From: Archive 5.

DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.

From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.

DAFMM (talk), 5th July 2009.


 * Captain Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, 1st Marquess do Maranhão (later Admiral of the Red and Rear Admiral of the United Kingdom aswell as leading other navies through their countries liberation including being Vice Admiral of Chile and Admiral of the Greek Fleet)
 * Captain Thomas Masterman Hardy, 1st Baronet (died in 1839 as Vice Admiral of the Blue, he also was the Governor of Greenwich Hospital, First Naval Lord (1830 - 1834) and was knighted)
 * Captain Sir Frederick Lewis Maitland (retired in 1839 as Rear Admiral of the Red and knghted (K.C.B.))
 * Commander Frederick Marryat (retired as captain in 1829 and was later a successful author, as well as the inventor of the lifeboat)

Heroism
From: Francis Drake.

Isn't it ridiculous how everyone is against slavery and yet admire a greedy slave trader like Drake?!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 6th September 2009.

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates for WikiProject History
Posted to: User talk: Roger Davies.

Roger Davies,

Do you need a coordinator or someone to help with vandalism etc.? As you can see from my record (in my talk page's archives) I don't mind making a name for myself or causing temper on both sides! If you need anyone to take the risks I don't mind doing it!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 8th September 2009.


 * Thanks for the message but that's more of an administrator role.  Roger Davies  talk 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. DAFMM (talk), 12th September 2009.

Stub
Moved: Talk: First Sea Lord.

DAFMM (talk), 8th September 2009.

Is this article really a stub? Perhaps not a complete article.... but a stub? Seems worse the article has 3 stub notices Wendell 06:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Bias
Posted to: User: Toddy1.

I see you have not responded.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 11th September 2009.

Hi!
Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.

Just wondering how everything is and if anything has happened on the Marquess front. It doesn't seem to be particulary well documented, does it?!!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 11th September 2009.


 * Cheers, DAF!!
 * Nothing new in the front... No one answered my messages in the different peer sites. Did you contact the Clan??
 * Since I talked to you last time, I have not yet contact some genealogists and monarchists here in Brazil, due to some priorities of mine -- but I do will contact them.
 * The only thing well documented is how Brazilian titles worked in 19th century, as I showed in the previous discussion. In the absence of a specific rule, I think we should adopt the general rule: titles were not hereditary.
 * All the best. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Thanks and I agree about the general rule. I retrieved this page which contains The Earl of Dundonald's address who I will probabley write to out of interest !!!. It should get to him if we expand it! Thanks. DAFMM (talk), 14th September 2009.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

Entitled 'Wikibirthday'.

Thanks.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

'Retirement'
I have decided to take a break from Wikipedia. Despite enjoying it I may never come back, it will be one of them things you never bother about!

Will it be noticed?

As they say 'veni, vidi, vici'!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

'Retirement'
Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.

I have decided to take a break from Wikipedia. However, if I come back you will be the first to know! I will keep on searching about the Marquess do Maranhao and will contact your talk page if I find anything.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

Last Edit
Anyone who takes editting Wikipedia seriously is an idiot with nothing else to do. It is a boy's play game.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.

14 Wikimedia sites, 3,875 edits.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 DAFMM 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

 A rather eccentric editor