User talk:David Biddulph/Archive 2

Great Britain at the Olympics
Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics and provide some reasoning for your edits on the above article rather than simply reverting. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 21:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in the reference, and that's what I said in the edit summary. David Biddulph (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As i've pointed out in the discussion linked above that reference doesn't really prove your point and there are multiple others that show you edits to be incorrect. It seems you chose to ignore this when reverting. Thanks Basement12 (T.C) 23:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vangaurd SSBNs
Yes I dont know how to edit the box set for Vangaurds weponry so I did it manualy. I thought its better to actualy put down how many torpedoes she holds, not just the number of tubes she has. How would I go about editing the box set? Rademire (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To edit the template, just edit Template:Vanguard class submarine armament. I've done that, & restored the links that were in there, & reverted the class page, & will revert the others.  If you have a reference for your data, you ought to include that in the template.  David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I havent changed any thing, except for the fact I put down the number of torpedoes she holds. Simple sum of 4 torp tubes = 1x4+(5x4 reloads) = 24 but due to the size of the vangaurd and the high value placed on her she would have more than the standard Royal navy reload of 5. I was under the impression any RN fan/follower would know this. Rademire (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The principle of Wikipedia is verifiability (look at WP:V). The information which you include needs to be referenced.  You are not perrmitted to include original research (WP:OR).  You say that Vanguard would have more than the standard number of reloads, but perhaps you have forgotten that the others are SSNs, designed for attack, whereas the Vanguards are SSBNs, for which the torpedoes are there merely for self-defence.  If you don't have a reference for the changes you have made, then they should be reverted.  David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s Doesnt the Vangaurds also hold harpoons? Just like the mix load used by Swiftsure, Trafalgar and Astute class SSNs? I think it would be best to mention the Vangaurds holds a mix load of around 24 torps and harps. Rademire (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you need a reliable source (look at WP:RS). David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I use bolds becuase lets say after saying the T-45 has a VLS holding aster 15 and 30 missiles, one can get mixed up with thn saying the VLS holds 48 aster missiles. I put it in bold to try and make it part of the sentence but at the same time not to make the info confusing to readers. But ON I will stop it. Rademire (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Read [MOS:BOLD]], & take the advice there. If you haven't read the rest of WP:MOS, I would advise that you do so.  David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken section link in Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight coxless four
Hi! I checked Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's lightweight coxless four and as you can see in section "Repechage", on the row "Rank 2", the wikilink "SA/B" points the section "v". It does not exist, so FrescoBot in the talk page suggested investigation. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 13:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was confused by the fact that your tag was placed on the talk page, not on the article itself. Wildbot has visited, & updated the talk page again, so where is the result of the whole exercise?  David Biddulph (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case WildBot was not able to identify the broken link. You may contact WildBot operator. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 15:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Basilicofresco
The reply below was to a question at User talk:Basilicofresco. David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It works only with Internet Explorer. -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 18:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Astute submarines
Hi. I've noticed speculated names being added for the last couple of boats, which you've done just now. Can you supply some confirmed sources? Otherwise your changes should be reverted, it's not final until confirmed. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the reference I quoted in my edit? David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that as I was just looking at the info box. Interesting that I (still) can't find an official press release on that, but I won't dispute it as it's on the RN website. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraphs
Greetings David Biddulph. Could you also check out the similar irrelevant paragraphs I modified at coxless pair and double sculls. They were confusing but I wasn't bold enough to remove 'em, just tried to knock some sense into them. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 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) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Clark and Clarke
Hi DB - I have to say I have come across some serious errors in Sports Reference so it would not surprise me if it has mixed the two up. The Almanack should have the answer - up to about 1995 it listed all international rowers but now only goes back to the nineties. Although there again I had problems. Not having individual crew listings for the Boat race crews in the 80s I tried to work them back from an almanack list that gave the years for each rower - this resulted in some crews of eleven people and others of six which accounts for the slightly sketchy out of order crews in the 80s. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If there are particular problems which need sorting out, give me a shout. I've got Almanacks back to the late 60s, & a few before then.  I've also got a pretty comprehensive list of GB internationals back to square one (i.e. 1900), largely based on Almanacks, but with numerous errors corrected.  There are still a few inconsistencies & omissions, but I've sorted most things out.  For some people I've got just name & events & years & results, but for many I've got seat in the boat, club, & I've tried to add first names (& odd extra info that comes to hand, like family connections, HRR Stewards, & sadly dates of death).  Clark & Clarke was a easier one than most to spot, as RJSC's blue was in my final year up at college, and Jim was racing for TT & GB during the time when I was racing at HRR & a few international regattas.  David Biddulph (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - thought you might have. The Cambridge crews which are not complete are 1994 and 1997. Those from 1983 to 1986 and 1990 to 1991 may have rowers out of order in the boat. Still working on the other place. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Milhist project
 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! Woody (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RAF MR2
I have not as of yet seen the MR2 totally removed from service. (only 2 or 3 have been removed so far) Please look at the latest 2010 source provided from the House of Commons. It it in clear view under the heading In service. Rademire2 (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * MR2 retired on 31 Mar 2010, as shown in the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod article, with references from the BBC, et al. It was widely publicised at the time.  More authoritative sources, for starters, at:
 * Ahead of its retirement on Wednesday 31 March 2010, Nimrod MR2 aircraft based at RAF Kinloss are making several flypasts of airfields in the UK that have connections to the fleet.
 * The Nimrod MR2 will mark its last operational flight ...
 * Nimrods Last Day - Wednesday 31 March 2010 "Today sees the last flight of the Nimrod MR2 fleet following over 30 years of service. The Nimrod MR2 will mark its last operational flight, weather permitting, ..." (Unfortunately weather didn't permit, on the final day).
 * 31 Mar 10 - Following over 30 years of service, the Nimrod MR2 fleet has now been taken out of service.


 * The latest House of Commons source that I can see referenced in the article is from 2 March 2010, which seems to refer to helicopters. The latest for fixed-wing aircraft seemed to be from January;  could you point me at the data showing MR2 in service since 31 Mar 2010?  Hansard 25 Feb 10 says "The Nimrod MR2 will be taken out of service on 31 March 2010, ...".  David Biddulph (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for that, sorry for the problems I caused :( I dont know why I did not already know about this! Well atleast I know now, and thanks again.

Rademire2 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC) p.s How many new MR4s will be taken into service?

Current Equipment of the British Army
There was no need to delete current equipment of the British Army, the article had never been covered before and there is no room on any existing article. Just take a look at the British Army page, its too big. Some of the subjects need to be put on sub pages, and some people have already mentioned that as well. But as soon as I try and put it in a fresh sub page, it gets deleted. So there isn't much chance is there, I try to make it better and they delete it. If you call putting extensive information which takes up allot of room on an already congested article Constructive then obviously I am stupid, because I cant see it. I don't see I have done any thing wrong except express my views on a talk page about the 10th of April Plane crash which killed the polish leaders. Also what I was saying was in line with a BBC article, where polish officials were angry that their leaders were all in one basket, in an aircraft that wasn't suitable. I just thought it may be interesting to include the BBC article as I noticed no one had yet included any information in the anger expressed by some polish officials back home. However as usual I wasn't able to get into a debate and share the BBC article with wikipedia, as right away I was blamed for being disruptive. Thing is, no one took the time to listen to what I was saying and just insulted my attempt to bring new information to wiki. I ask you, isn't the talk pages on wiki articles for debating information? Why then was I pushed aside? That was when my behaviour became bad, calling people stupid in edit summary's, basically because I am pissed off. I try add new info to wiki and my attempt is insulted, I try and move British army equipment onto a sub page and it gets deleted. And both of this was done by the same person! That's why I call him a wiki Nazi. Rademire2 (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also I allways remove every message on my Talk page, its just a habbit. Rademire2 (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As in a number of places, you've apparently failed to read the comment which was made. Nobody was suggesting that you add your material to British Army.  The suggestion made on your talk page was that you include your material in Modern equipment of the British Army.  Perhaps you deleted the comment before reading it?


 * As for the other comments, you will see the number of people who took exception to the tone of the material you added, hence perhaps in future you may find it more constructive to add link to the facts or to other reports on them, and leave other people to draw their own conclusions. You mention edit summaries;  a large proportion of your edits don't include any information in the edit summary, though I am sure that you are aware that they are recommended;  it is therefore not surprising when other editors object to your inclusion of personal attacks in some of the few edit summaries which you do include.  We know that you have added useful contributions to Wikipedia, so it would be a pity if you were to be blocked because of a few acts of thoughtlessness.  David Biddulph (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
About, you might want to add your piece here. Cheers and regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Maths was never my strong point...
Greetings David Biddulph - I was going by the inline citation, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that I missed one or didn't count correctly... Sigh! I tried to check it out at Henley's official Web site, but there doesn't seem to be a list o' winners (or if there is, I missed... double sigh!) Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the reference you were looking at was rowinghistory, it doesn't tell you the names of the members of winning crews in eights, fours, or quads. No, there isn't a list of winning crew members on the HRR website, nor even of winning crews (without names) beyond the recent ones.  You need to look in the HRR records or regatta programmes.  The 1983 Queen Mum I remember vividly, as he won that but lost the Diamonds to Steve Redgrave in that cracking race where they rowed each other to a standstill along the enclosures, then when Steve recovered he was able to stagger across the line.  I'm assuming that Motmit was probably right with his 7;  that is what the superstars website says.  I'll check.  David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, "rowing history" is the source I used. I'm pretty sure Motmit is right - we might not see eye-to-eye on where to put commas an' stuff like that :), but I wouldn't care to pit meself against his knowledge of facts & details like that - but I got the impression he was actually doubting the figure, so when I could only come up the 4, I reckoned I was onto a winner. Could that 7 be the number of times he participated in total (1st & 2nd places?) or would that be far too few? BTW, maybe you could include a stroke-by-stroke account of the '83 Queen Mum 'tween the two on their respective article pages. The event & the participants are certainly notable enough. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added the other 3 wins to Tim Crooks to make the 7. No, 7 wouldn't be right for his HRR appearances!  The full list is 66 PE, 67 PE, 68 Thames (won), 69 Diamonds, 70 Grand, 71 Grand & Goblets (won that), 72 Doubles (won), 73 Diamonds, 74 Grand, 75 Grand (won), 77 Diamonds (won), 78 Diamonds (won), 82 Brit, 83 QM (won) & Diamonds, 84 Doubles & Diamonds. David Biddulph (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for that - I know Superman doesn't exist, but at least I've seen the next-best. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia User Abuse Claim
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 216.26.213.34.

Punting edit
Thank you for your comment on my page. In response to your question, please see the reference in the article to punting in Lancaster. Similarly I was surprised at the removal of the Bath reference, when there is a historic and bustling punting station in Bath. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reminding me of my spelling. I suffer from a minor form of Dyslexia and as such it can be hard. I will most defiantly try harder to keep it under control. But thanks again mate. Recon.Army (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 216.x
Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He seems to have gone quiet - at last. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive Socks

 * FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Swamilive
 * 216.26.2xx.xxx
 * User talk:216.26.202.110 contributions
 * User talk:216.26.202.187 contributions blocked on 16 & 21 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.211.12 contributions
 * User talk:216.26.213.34 contributions Blocked 15 April 2010
 * User talk:216.26.213.69 contributions blocked on 26 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.214.39 contributions Blocked 12, 14 & 28 April 2010
 * User talk:216.26.219.104 contributions Blocked 10 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.222.47 contributions blocked on 16 May 2010
 * User talk:216.26.223.38 contributions
 * User talk:216.26.223.175 contributions
 * 216.211.xx.xxx
 * User talk:216.211.52.170 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
 * User talk:216.211.52.232 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
 * User talk:216.211.53.205 contributions blocked on 11 May 2010
 * User talk:216.211.72.66 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.73.24 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.93.108 contributions blocked on 29 April 2010
 * User talk:216.211.95.252 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.97.11 contributions Blocked 7 & 9 April 2010
 * 216.211.xxx.xxx
 * User talk:216.211.102.216 contributions
 * User talk:216.211.117.165 contributions
 * Pages vandalised
 * Brigadier
 * Brigadier General
 * Charles Edward Merriam
 * Extra time
 * Garrison
 * Garrison Sergeant Major
 * Rear admiral
 * FYI? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sabotaging metre changes
David, it's contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to sabotage other users' legitimate changes. The comment I removed from the spelling section of the metre article was unjustified - the discussion of the source did not elaborate on any reason as to why the N.I.S.T. chose to spell the distance as 'meter', so it was correct to remove the comment in the article about their reason for spelling it as 'meter'. Thankfully another user has checked that source and found that it does discuss their reasons for the alternate spelling, even though the discussion of that summary previously didn't mention that the reasons were discussed. In future, you're best to provide justifications for sabotaging other users' work.Owen214 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Greg kogan
You posted to AIV about IP user 95.79.39.74, and you said "at least the 3rd sock of previously blocked user ". I have found another one of the three at 109.194.38.9, but do you still know what the other one was? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 95.79.33.176 was another, and 109.194.13.244 was an instance before the account appeared.  David Biddulph (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 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) 20:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Nancy talk  06:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Racing Shell and Olympic Class Boats
Hi David,

You recent made this edit to the Racing shell article because you disagree that "Racing Shells" are sometimes referred to as "Olympic Class Racing Shells." I ask that you reconsider your edit.

Even if your assertion that "boats such as 2+ and 4+ are not Olympic classes" were true (which it is not as I explain below), I would argue that the term "Olympic Class Shell" is still a relevant synonym for "Racing Shell" because the 1X, 2X, 2-, 4X, 4- (men only), and 8+ were all raced at the 2008 Olympics. We appear to agree that these configurations are olympic class boats, and my edit to the article stating that "a racing shell is also referred to as the Olympic class boat" is accurate and informative even if (as you assert) Olympic class is a subset of racing shell/fine boats.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, your assertion that "boats such as 2+ and 4+ are not Olympic classes" is misleading or inaccurate for two reasons. First, the 2+ and 4+ were raced in the Olympics for a century and as recently as the 1992 Olympics, so it is not accurate to state that these configurations are not Olympic with nothing furhter.

Second, your edit inaccurately conflates "Olympic Rowing Events" with "Olympic Class Racing Shell." These concepts are distinct and independent. The term "Olympic class boat" refers generally to those types of boats with a long slender design in the same way that fine boat or racing shell does. Referring to such a boat as an "Olympic class boat" is accurate independent of whether its configuration is currently raced in the Olympics or even whether it was ever raced in the Olympics. For example, an 8+ is an olympic class boat even if a particular manufacturer has never built a boat that has raced in the Olympics. Moreover, when Empacher makes and 8+ for a 155 pound crew, it is still an Olympic class boat even though there has never been a lightweight 8 Olympic event. And of course, if a crew puts sculling rigors on an Olympic class 8, the boat does not cease to be and Olympic class boat simply because there has never been an Octuple Olympic event.

Below are references (cached to highlight terms) that demonstrate "Olympic Class" being used in a way that is synonymous with fine boat and racing shell, and independent of the concept of actual olympic events:


 * 1) britishrowing.org describing the fine boat as follows: "The fine boat, also known as the Olympic class boat, is the familiar racing shell that you will see rowed or sculled at inland competitions"
 * 2) Hudson Boat Works describing all of the boats it manufactures as "Olympic Class Shells"
 * 3) article making distinction between olympic class boats and non-olympic class boats including "boats with wider hulls" and used for "ocean rowing"
 * 4) patent application for a "rowing machines with internal environments that duplicate actual Olympic-class rowing shells" used as a synonym for racing shell

Note: cross-posted on both Talk:Racing shell, User talk:David Biddulph

Thanks,

Ciricula (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

British National Grid System
Hi David - re: your revert on B.I / UK - that isn't the sense of the sentence. It currently (after your revert) reads "Two such systems exist for the United Kingdom: this article describes the one used for Great Britain and its outlying islands (including the Isle of Man); a similar system, used throughout Ireland (including Northern Ireland), is the Irish grid reference system (used jointly by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and the former Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland)." Doesn't that clearly say that there is one system for GB and outlying islands and other for Ireland? Therefore, surely there are two in the BI and not two in the UK? There may well be other UK systems, but that isn't how the sentence currently reads. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is at least one other system in the British Isles (in the Channel Isles), but that is outside the UK. There are 2 systems in the UK, but at least 3 in the British Isles.  David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the sentence is innacurate. At the moment it says there are two in the UK - one for GB and outlying islands - that by definition is the UK - and another for Ireland. That is not "two in the UK". It is two in the British Isles. Clearly it needs another modification to fit your information. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the sentence inaccurate? You statement one for GB and outlying islands - that by definition is the UK is fantasy.  Since when does the "UK" not include Northern Ireland?  The article states there are two in the UK, and there are, and it does so for a reason.  The point being made in the article is that although there is a "British" grid system, not all "British" countries use the same system, since Northern Ireland uses a different one.  Your attempt to horseshoe "there are 3 systems in the British Isles" misses the point being made.  --HighKing (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to continue this discussion, the proper place is at the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've copied this discussion there. --HighKing (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about grid systems HighKing? Or is this part of some more general campaign? I have asked you about this on your talk page, but you seem reluctant to respond. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously know a lot more than you, both about grid systems, and the geography of the British Isles and the United Kingdom. I missed your initial "ad hominen" attack on my Talk page, but I've responded now.  --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent discussion on the article talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I should know better, thanks for fixing my mistake. Sorry. Justin talk 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
Hello DB, you being an uninvolved third party here, could you take a look at Talk:Singapore? Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™ 00:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summer Youth Olympics Medal Table
It was explained. Read the legend. You are the one who is not explaining your edit because in your edit France has 3 golds, 1 silver and 5 bronzes. If you have an actual count again of their medals, you will notice that France has really only 2 golds, 2 silvers, and 2 bronzes. Thanks!!!112.201.59.48 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't include an edit summary to try to explain your edits. 3-1-5 details shown at France at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics.  And please read the talk page re mixed NOC medals.  David Biddulph (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackpool Tramway
The site was working yesterday, perhaps its just gone down temporarily. WatcherZero (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving a "403 Forbidden". David Biddulph (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to have recovered today. David Biddulph (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: FRANCE AT THE 2010 SUMMER YOUTH OLYMPICS
Oh sorry!!! I just made a mistake mr. david buddolph!!! I just finished taking a look at the website of YOG and I saw that there was a tie. Thanks and sorry!!!Kuyacomeback (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DAVID
That was very rude to harrass me saying that I'm gonna get banned again and its a much longer one. I LOVE THE NYCS AND I AM SAYING THE RIGHT STUFF. D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.168.173 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the IP editor ignored the warnings that I and others had given him, and continued his own sweet way, and suffered the inevitable consequences. See his talk page, & his contribution history.  There's none so blind as those who will not see.  David Biddulph (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7 clensing
You are hereby notified of the discussion involved Windows Phone 7 at WP:AN/I Illegal Operation (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Torpedo: Croatian source added to article
Here you are. --Darius (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My email to you
Hi. Did you read the e-mail I sent to you last week? Hey Mid  (contributions) 12:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Worried at continuing problems;  please listen to the advice.  David Biddulph (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hello David Biddulph, thank you for reverting that unreferenced BLP list material from those television station articles. It is sincerely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Diamond
was formally commissioned on 22 September at approx 14:00 hrs. I was present at the formal ceremony. 86.180.87.215 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The confusion is therefore that of the Royal NAvy who claimed it was a commissioning. Maybe you know better than the RN! 86.180.87.215 (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See the ref, & the note at your talk page. That was the handover ceremony.  The commissioning is due to take place in July 2011.  Do you have an WP:RS from the RN that says this week's ceremony was a commissioning?  The QHM describes the ceremony.  David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And also see the RN website which said "The 45-minute ceremony will include an ‘exchange of ensigns’ ceremony during which the Blue Ensign will be lowered and replaced by the Royal Navy’s White Ensign to mark the official handover. The event concludes with an ‘Acceptance Off Contract’ signing ceremony under the White Ensign." The RN do understand the difference between that and commissioning.  David Biddulph (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Spoke to my RN contact while I was at Portsmouth NB today. It seems I have to concede the point and it was indeed he that was confused.  I'm not important enough to attend the actual ceremony but I did witness it from a convenient vantage point on the quayside.  86.178.9.171 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

David - thanks for dealing with this. Shem (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge two articles – your opinion sought
Hi David Biddulph, hope you are doing well. I made a proposal to merge Commonwealth Games Village 2010 into Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games as you can see here. You might have seen this raised on the talk page of 2010 Commonwealth Games. I would like to seek your views on the matter if you are able to; the more opinions, the better! Cheers, A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 07:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Multi-sport events
Hi David Biddulph, the creation of a WikiProject Multi-sport events has been recently proposed. Hoping you will chip in and discuss/support the WikiProject proposal. Best, A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

England at the 2010 Commonwealth Games
Thanks for your help with the England page for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Keep up the good work... suggestions welcome :) E1tiger (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)E1Tiger

Getting 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table to FLC
Hi David, I think 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table is suitable for FLC. Since you were one of the primary contributors to the article, anything to say about it? Looking forward to your comments, A NG C HENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to let you in, I intend to turn this into an FT! I suppose I do need help with that. Cheers, A NG C HENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus Medal Tally
I have absolutely no idea how the Official site counted the bronze as 3. Anyways the official site is buggy and the other credible sites like times of india are showing Cyprus with 4g, 3s, 4b. Here is the link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cwgmedaltally.cms. I hope I am right, as I have followed the games very closely and don't know when cyprus got their fifth medal. :)

Amboeing747 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template:Romford to Upminster Line
I have managed to fix it. There were some erroneous tags in the diagram possibly left over from a pervious copy-paste edit. I also linked the template outside of the infobox so as to include the standard header which gives links to view or edit the template or view the template_talk (discussion) page (the [v • d • e] ). -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting it. I was a bit suspicious about the tags, but I don't know my way around the system well enough to try changing things.  One of these days I'll have to learn my way around the syntax of these diagrams.  So far any changes I have done to such diagrams have been very minor (such as turning Workington North to disused), & very carefully checked in preview!.  David Biddulph (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much that you recovered the discussion posts. I did not have any intention to delete anything. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

BAE
Hi. I'm not going to make a point of reverting - just for the record, the corporate entity that is BAE Systems plc is what was British Aerospace plc with Marconi Electronic Systems merged into it, not vice versa. The link you quote even says it on the first line! Mark83 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect (Continuation from help page)
Hi David

You gave innocent way of entering into XYZ. I wish to learn stopping redirection of ABC to XYZ.

Regards Sushil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.129.120 (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I told you how to get to the ABC page, which is where the redirection to XYZ is done. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Help desk post
Hi. I took the liberty of substituting your use of astray as it broke being only transcluded and you post was already a few hours old—hope you don't mind.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, and for the reminder. I must have been asleep at the time. :-(   - David Biddulph (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anytime. I am very wary of doing anything that smacks of changing another person's post and try to always inform when I do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)