User talk:David Biddulph/Archive 6

National Schools Regatta
Cheers David on those spelling corrections. What else could we add to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimsculler2015 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 March 2015‎ (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

WWW
as per discussion: https:// was to be used if site shows it but https://twitter makes no sense! either www. should be there or https:// to be removed: aGastya    &#9993; let's talk about it  :)  17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not what the discussion says. Read it again. If you have difficulty understanding English, you may be better sticking to the Wikipedia in your own language. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a general question!
Hello! I wanted to ask: are you a computer expert? in a reply of yours at WP:HD I felt you have an excellent knowledge of it: Well I want to know this because of this. i have some ideas: so can we discuss that? aGastya   &#9993; let's talk about it  :)  06:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dream of claiming to be an expert, but I do have some experience, of computing in general and of Wikipedia in particular. Interesting that you have been asked to express your opinion on WP:VisualEditor, as it had been rejected as a default by the English Wikipedia community a long while before your account was registered. It was so shoddy (when it was prematurely deployed) that I haven't touched it since. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Satwant Singh Dhaliwal
With respect.

You have another "reference", used multiple times, which is simply "Resume of Satwant Singh Dhaliwal, Unpublished". If it is unpublished it is (by definition) not a reliable source and cannot be used for verification. A number of the other "references" are themselves unsourced statements, so are equally unacceptable as reliable sources. - The resume and bio are the ONLY unpublished documents and serve to fill in info gaps like dates. Notability is established through published sources. - I do not know what other references that you are referring to which you say are unsourced. - Are not books and national daily newspapers reliable sources? - Could you perhaps be more specific by naming the things you are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferyseow (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 March 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Two examples:
 * Ref 15 - "This was the first time, in Malaya (as it then was) that any Sikh had won this. The other, to have won this scholarship, Chatar Singh Data, was three years young Dhaliwal's senior. By then, the two of them were graduate assistants at the University of Malaya. They had both studied on Federal bursaries and both secured their Bachelor of Science, First-class Honours degrees the year before, Dhaliwal's in Zoology. At this time Dhaliwal, married, was preparing a thesis on the genetics of Malayan rats for his Master of Science degree and is reported to have been thinking of taking a Doctorate in Philosophy at the University of London." - Where are the sources in that?
 * Ref 21 - "“He was always so brilliant, from ACS Teluk Anson to his days at University of Malaya in Singapore to Professor of Genetics at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.” - Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim. “I was the beneficiary of his dedication to excellence as he worked tirelessly to put the Department of Genetics at Universiti Malaya on a solid footing.” Subang Member of Parliament Sivarasa Rasiah. “He was regarded by many of his peers as a world-class geneticist.” - Former Business Times bureau chief for Malaysia, S Jayasankaran. “Professor Dhaliwal’s discipline in genetics was complementary to mine (zoology). But we shared supervision of some of the best students, including the late Dr Ho Choy Choke and Prof Yong Hoi Sen. Satwant was always a convivial member of the small group of lecturers in those days. I have nothing but happy memories of that formative time in my career as one of a friendly team of staff, among who Prof Dhaliwal was a significant figure, charged with leading the discipline of genetics.” - Lord Gathorne Cranbrook, the 5th Earl of Cranbrook. “Satwant’s academic achievements were there for all to see. For us, he was the organizer of hockey games and a social life that was the envy of many in the University. Even the then Vice-Chancellor Prof Sir Alexander Oppenheim (just before Prof Ungku Aziz’s term as VC) understood a bit of boisterous behaviour as long as productive work got done – and that was a remarkable feature of Satwant: after a late night he was up early in his lab or giving lectures. Eccentricity is tolerated in British universities but not in many other places.” - Professor Dr. Jose Furtado"" - In there you included a few sources to show that the people exist, but no sources to say that they made the statements you quote.
 * David Biddulph (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Satwant_Singh_Dhaliwal
I've made changes. jefferyseow (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Name
Hello! I want to ask that can I call you David? Because I don't remember your full name and I don't want to write it wrong! Sorry to say it! But I want to avoid spelling mistakes! . Will it be okay? aGastya   &#9993; let's talk about it  :)  18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Operosa
Dear David Biddulph,

I'm writing about Operosa

Unfortunately our page has been declined again, Draft:Operosa The confusing thing is that is a user who no longer exists. Would you please take a look? User:Aerospeed

I really don't know what to do next.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operosa (talk • contribs) 08:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course the user exists; they couldn't have declined your submission if they didn't exist.  The user's contribuions are at Special:Contributions/Aerospeed and their talk page at User talk:Aerospeed. It is only the user page which doesn't exist, and no user is required to have a user page.  You will note also that I have changed the urls in your question to wikilinks, as they are the preferred way of linking from one Wikipedia page to another and not as ugly as a url.  As for what to do next, I would suggest that you wait until someone else believes that your organisation is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge
Your recent editing history at Cambridge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behaviour indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mvpo666 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you have reminded yourself of the instructions regarding edit-warring. In particular you need to read what you said above: "To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors."  Your edit was reverted (by more than one editor), so you need to discuss it on the article talk page, and in order to get a consensus to support your view you would need to find sufficient reliable sources to support your edit.  If you continue to add that sort of edit in that way, other editors are liable to continue to regard your edits as deliberately disruptive and treat them as vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not edit-warring here. You are the one who is. But apart from that, you are right, and that is what I shall do. Mvpo666 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've started a discussion about including the University ice hockey in the Cambridge article at Talk:Cambridge. Please do contribute to it so that consensus can be reached. Cheers! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Appleby Fair
Mr Biddulph, your deletion of the edit about accommodation at Appleby Fair seems very severe. Wikipedia is a primary source of public information about Appleby Fair, and the most frequently asked questions about the Fair relate to accommodation.

Is your edit a matter of personal preference, or is there a Wikipedia rule which limits the information provided?

Thanks, Bill Lloyd  William Lloyd (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've moved this to the foot of the page, as that is where new topics on a talk page go.
 * The travel guide point is not a matter of personal preference; see WP:NOTGUIDE. You say that Wikipedia is the main source of public information about Appleby Fair, but the first entry at Appleby Horse Fair says "The official website for the fair, which carries public service announcements about dates, parking, licencing, trading, camping and accommodation etc. is at http://www.applebyfair.org", and that's where the information presumably belongs. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Signing requirements
Excuse me for spending your time. I am new in editing processes. So I make minor faults. I hae taken a message from you. First I coulnt understand the problem entirely. Then what should I do to solve? Thank you, if you help me.Okurogluselo 17:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)


 * You could start off by checking whether you have erroneously ticked the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box at Special:Preferences. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

GWR First Group
I would like to know why it is that The Buses of Somerset can have its own page, and be seen as a separate company to that of First Somerset & Avon yet GWR by First is not allowed? Seems a little unfair to me, the new franchise awarded to First Group until 2019, is for the GWR brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Buses of Somerset was a subset of First Somerset & Avon, transferred to become part of First Devon & Cornwall. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI [[USS Scorpion (SSN-589)|USS ''Scorpion'' (SSN-589)]]
Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 01:47, 8 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Draft:Rütschi
Thank you for redirect. I have some problems with the pictures there. Would you be so kind an help me. Thanks. --Stadtbaumeister24 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Endurance
What about Endurance? Why is she still on the "active" list? I posted a question about this on the article's talk page ages ago, but no one has responded. Argovian (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Decommissioned in 2012, apparently, according to https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445282/EnduranceAdvert_2.pdf . Some of Wikipedia's pages probably need to catch up. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Input Requested
Hello, I noticed you recently edited La Salle College High School. I have created a talk page discussion to discuss the issues related to the page, including the Public Relations campaign waged by the school and the "pool mass" topic. Your input would be appreciated. Talk:La Salle College High School

Thanks! 70.192.131.83 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A different question
Hi David,

Thanks so much for your message. I made a picture and uploaded it to my draft page, but not sure it's there since I only see the old one. Could you please check it for me?

Your time is very much appreciated!

1001Bookworm (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

About editing
I'm sorry, David. When I was adding/changing the references, I got confused, so I must've accidently changed your editing without knowing. Thanks so much for your help, 1001Bookworm (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * How many more times do you need to be told the difference between the "See also" section and the "External links" section? Please read Manual of Style/Layout.  Normally layout faults like this would perhaps not of themselves be grounds for declining approval of a draft at WP:AFC review (and they'd be left to be corrected when the article is published), but if you continually reintroduce such errors after they have been corrected, and explained in the edit summary, it wouldn't surprise me if a reviewer were to decline the submission again. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Notability for Elle (blogger)
To be able to edit and provide the notability, I would like to request the retrieve of the information that has been provided in the page to add the necessary requirements to avoid speedy deletion and retrieve and to provide for undeletion requirements regarding the notability. Thank you so much and hoping for your kindly consideration. DDAENT (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No point in asking me. You are too late to avoid speedy deletion.  To request retrieval you need to ask the admin who deleted the page.  To support your request, you will need to provide the published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate her notability, as advised on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. But i'm afraid the person who deleted the page doesn't provided a page talk to talk to him. Too complicated since. Can you help me with this problem?. Thanks anyway DDAENT (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, he does. If you look at the deletion log (at Elle (blogger) or here) you will see the name of the admin who deleted the page.  Alongside the name is the word "talk" in blue.  That is a wikilink to the admin's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the information. I'm having a hard time on the talk thing, Mr. Anthony Bradbury is the admin who deleted it. I cannot add my message at the bottom of his page, why is that? I cannot email him also doesn't provide any. What other options can you proposed. Thanks in advance. DDAENT (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks as if, because of previous vandalism, User talk:Anthony Bradbury is semi-protected, which means that you won't be able to write to it until your account is autoconfirmed, which won't happen until your account has been registered for more than 4 days. I suggest that in that time you read the links which you have been given about notability and the need for references.  If you are convinced that the subject meets the notability requirements, you can prepare a new draft in your user sandbox, using either the sandbox link at the top of any page or the redlink User:DDAENT/sandbox.  - David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the very great help. Mr. Biddulph. DDAENT (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why

 * Don't talk gibberish. A Google search for "Penzance International Trains" finds nothing except the rubbish which you have added.  If you can firstly find a published reliable source and secondly learn how to format edits correctly, then you might try again, but not until.  --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
I really appreciate your help! David. 1001Bookworm (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What you do need to do, now that your article has been published, is to read WP:external links, and take out the 9 external links which are sitting in the text, and for each one either make it a reference, move it to the external links section, or throw it away. One obvious example of one to throw away is your link to http://www.magazinescanada.ca/membership/join/application, which seems irrelevant to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Question re new article
91.125.237.198 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Hi David, thanks for your response. My question is I created my first article for Wikipedia on Wednesday evening, entitled 'Rev C.H. Dick'. I clicked 'save page'. The article has not appeared on Wikipedia and I can't locate it anywhere in my user space. Have I done something wrong? Have I not understood properly how to upload new articles, or is it going through a process of approval? 91.125.237.198 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've moved your question to the foot of the page, as that's where new topics go. It might avoid confusion if rather than editing from the IP address you log on with your account.  I gave you the welcome message at User talk:Dsbartholomew with a number of links, particularly WP:Your first article.  Your question (from your IP address) was answered at THQ. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've hopefully managed to submit my article now. I clicked on the 'save page' button to submit it. I think the problem may have been that last time I only came across the CAPTCHA security check after I had clicked the 'save page' button, and did nothing further after filling in the letters. But this time I got the yellow 'review waiting' box.91.125.237.198 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello!
Hi David Biddulph, Thanks for helping and sorry if I made a mistake. Nice meeting you!😉 Shipgirl09 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David for your help with getting the correct date format
M. Are the pages "Marquess of Lansdowne" and "William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne" correct dates too? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.182.221.219 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for moving my article to a sandbox. I'm kind of new here (1 month). PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I misplaced it myself at the first attempt to move it, but it's now in the right place as a subpage in your user space, at User:PeterLFlomPhD/Gateway School of New York. I've tagged it as a userspace draft, & that will allow you to submit it for review when ready.  Happy editing! --David Biddulph (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

180.234.18.196
Hi. You reported the 180... IP hopping vandal. I blocked the address you reported. Are there any other addresses, other than the ones you posted at AIV. I would like to see if a range block might be appropriate. Could you please reply at my talk page. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks!!
== thanks for answering my querry == my email --Aryan hindustan (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Referencing for 2015 World Rowing
This is for you, referecing for 2015 World Rowing Ionel141, Ionel141 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My Italian isn't very good. Which paragraph of that article do you want me to read.  Are you sure that whoever wrote that has read the qualification rules?  --David Biddulph (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

List of the best-selling boy bands in Asia
The same editor who previously created List of the best selling boyband in the world has now created List of the best-selling boy bands in Asia. I proposed its deletion just now, maybe you can take it into your consideration to delete the article since you've deleted the previous one. Thank you.--  Krystaleen  03:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin; I can't delete anything.  If your prod is unsuccessful, I'm pretty confident that an AFD would be agreed. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oops I thought you were an admin. Okay then, thanks!--  Krystaleen  15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course, some IP editor that I suspect is the logged out editor removed the PROD. I now have started at AfD Articles for deletion/List of the best-selling boy bands in Asia.--  Krystaleen  04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not fair that my article was deleted! I still do not understand how wikipedia works.
I still do not understand why my article was deleted!

I do understand the advertising aspect that you do mention but i will list a few that have tons more advertising on their post!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HintHunt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Escape_Hunt_Experience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MindTrap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdventureRooms

There are many of the same industry that are 100% advertising a place and they are there!

I cannot find any difference to my article but i would say they seem really really advertising.

I would appreciate an explanation.

I can write the same article as them...in the same manner but i know it will not accepted which seems really weird!Piatefixer (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about my edits to Draft:Khushbu Thakkar
Hi, I saw you made a note on Draft:Khushbu Thakkar about the India-Forums.com urls having their prefixes stripped out. I only did it that way because the article is presently still a draft; if it were in mainspace I would have either hidden the links in html comments or deleted them while waiting on the whitelist decicion (or given up on them and found alternate sources, though in this case a paucity of alternate sources motivated me to request the whitelisting). Obviously this broke the citation templates, but again it's temporary and the article is a draft under construction. Is there any particular Wikipedia guideline for situations like this, or, failing that, could you give me your aadvice? Thanks, GrammarFascist   contribs talk 05:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand what you did. Seems sensible under the circumstances. As you had put a note about that domain I thought it was worth clarifying it further, if only to prevent anyone else wasting their time trying to resolve the url scheme error messages by adding the http:// prefix. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Help Desk
Hi David. Thanks for answering. I responded here. (N0n3up (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

Korakuen Stadium
Thank you so much David for your help on the NFL's St. Louis Cardinals in Wembley Stadium (1923). I have a serious problem may you please help me on the NFL's St. Louis Cardinals in Korakuen Stadium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJRobbie (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 November 2015‎ (UTC)


 * You'd made the same mistake as last time and not got the name of the page quite right. The problem is that St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960–1987) is not the same as St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960-1987); a hyphen is not the same as an emdash or an endash.  Safest to go to the relevant article, copy the title, and paste where you want to use it. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now created a redirect from St. Louis Cardinals (NFL, 1960-1987), as recommended for articles whose name includes a dash, so that should hopefully reduce problems for folk who get similarly confused in future. The guidance on use of the characters is at MOS:HYPHEN and MOS:DASH. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Digital amnesia
You took the action of restoring this article to a redirect after what might be called vandalism. The term is used by Kaspersky Labs for what has been called the Google effect. I would appreciate any appropriate action being taken in the form of a hatnote or disambiguation page, but I'll leave that up to you.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone suggested doing it myself, so I hope I did the right thing.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Aryan hindustan
I may be overly patient, but I think we should super-AGF and be gentle. We are not 100% sure that he simply does not care. Can we rule out mobile device problems? I wouldn't know about that. Also, this might be some sort of personal issue which makes him incapable of getting it right. Oddly, five years ago, this spacing/punctuation problem was everywhere in India-related articles. I do not know why the problem has lessened. Maybe the school system there. Maybe articles got cleaned up and Indian editors saw more of how it is correctly done. Who knows? What is odd is how someone can read English text for years and not notice that they are doing it or not care. The problem exists here in China too because Chinese writing doesn't use many spaces between. Maybe Indians are used to writing in Hindi, where it is the same. I don't know. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, the school system hasn't changed much in India. As far I could recall this is one of the common problems of India based new editors, but I've seen that many accept the advises and start writing in the proper way. If they are not changing their writing style after a few warnings, I don't feel super-AGF might require, they either can't change their habit or they might be ignoring the warnings. Best,  Jim Car ter  04:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Vin09 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks– good job
Perfect answer to my question. I was baffled. Kudos Eagledj (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page/entry
Hi David

Many thanks for your earlier message. I understand the part about a conflict of interest that you mention, but want to ask you if there were any other reasons for the deletion of said entry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MahaVajra/sandbox

Huge thanks for any help you can throw my way, am new to this and am struggling a bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahaVajra (talk • contribs) 15:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User:MahaVajra/sandbox has not been deleted, and I have seen no proposal that it be deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Potatoes
User: Ratnadeep Sircar Hello David, You´re anbsoloutely right, I didn´t read rhe question properly. A friend posed this question to me as " what would the potatoes weigh, if 1% of the water evaporates? ". I have deleted my comments on the main page and would like to apologize to anybody who was offended by them. The equations are correct.

All the same, it leads to another thought: When the water evaporates, the space it occupied would probably, if only partially, be replaced by air. This would mean that the total mass would be higher, as that which is presumed in the solution. As a result one would have to modify the equations and would end up with another result. What do you think about this?

P.S. I wrote this message a few days ago but must have saved it in the wrong section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnadeep Sircar (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 November 2015‎ (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnadeep Sircar (talk • contribs) 08:55, 5 December 2015‎ (UTC)


 * You saved your message at User:Ratnadeep Sircar. I have added a section heading before your message here, as it had nothing to do with the section in which you placed it. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Storm Desmond, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlisle and Lancaster. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorted. Thank you, bot. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk: Devonexpressbus
Sorry about that issue. For now, I've restored my comment as he might have not seen it. Vincent60030 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

GWR Diagrams
Please refer to my latest post in the GWR talk page, diagram section, all explains why they have been moved. However since you have reverted it I shall leave it as some "person" will say im vandalizing it again.Devonexpressbus 21:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Artful submarine
I added Artful into the List of active Royal Navy ships before I'd checked the edit history and seen it had been removed once already ... Since as of the 10th December Artful is owned and operated by the RN, I thought it belonged in the table, even if it isn't commissioned. I understand the commissioning happens in March 2016 but the boat is being operated by the rn at the moment and so (in my view) is currently active. I'll leave it up to you to keep/dispose my edit, just thought I'd explain my reasoning. Waterwings91 (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Artful has been removed at least 4 times, I think.  The policy for that page has always been that only commissioned ships are included, and the word "commissioned" occurs numerous times.  Some confusion was caused a month or so ago by a misleading press release regarding a families day for Artful whi some people read as saying that she had been commissioned.  We'll all be glad to see her added to the list when the time comes, hopefully in March if all goes smoothly. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Station X (Radio station) prod
OK I have nominated it for a speedy instead. I was approaching the removal as vandalism (in which case restoring it is allowed under WP:PROD) given the editor's editing pattern. But if you think it's not, I will accept that. Thanks.  Harry   Let us have speaksundefined 13:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Yes the markup box was ticked. RedExplosives (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's good. Working OK now. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Habsmonmouth
Hi David, Sorry I am rather new to this and will change the profile to show that I work for the Schools. We were keen to correct and update our entries (eg a change to boarding age range from 9 to 7 and results still referring to 2010). I will submit revised text to the 'sandbox' for it to be checked and approved in future. Kind regards, Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habsmonmouth (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Ravi Agrawal - Edits
Hi, Thanks for your contribution. The very first thing I would like to tell you that this article is for deletion and because he is not a notable person although the citation which he has provided are most of the related to his designation not his personal life. I would like to save this article because his designation is notable and it must be on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand.kumar01 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Polite Notice
Hello,

If you believe I have broken some code of conduct, rather than threaten me on my talk page, report me to whatever authority you deem appropriate. Also, I would caution against wading into a topic in which you have-unlike myself-no formal training.

Euphiletos (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't concerned with your academic qualifications or with your original research; it is interested in what is verifiable, hence the warning. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest it was (though it ought to be); and I didn't offer any original research. I repeat my recommendation-and your warnings are of no interest to me. Euphiletos (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cross Country Route diagram for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cross Country Route diagram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Cross Country Route diagram until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please help
We are asked not to be abusive. And I've made sure I'm not but it seems to me that editors can approach matters as they wish. If I could understand what I was expected to do I would do it! Why is it assumed that I'm been deliberately going my own way? In the edits there are all kinds of words, symbols etc which I don't understand and that is why I embarked on the method I found under 'Citations' in your pages which is:

''If the citation you are placing between the ref tags as your source is a link to an external website, place the website address (URL) within single square brackets along with some text, which the reader will see as a link. For example: ''

That I can understand and that is what I was doing.

As I have to edit the remainder of the refs I need to know how to do them. Believe me, I am not normally abtuse: I would not have had a long career in publishing and teaching if I was. But jargon, symbols etc mean nothing to me.

I can't follow what the editor has already done - I have tried and it didn't work. I explained that already.

Please help Balquhidder2013 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The method which User:Theroadislong was using was as described at WP:CITEHOW, which also links to the various citation templates, such as cite web. We don't expect new editors to know everything about how Wikipedia works, and we realise that referencing isn't the easiest part of the task, but it wasn't very tactful of you to revert User:Theroadislong when he was trying to help you.  Better to ask, and/or to look at more of the help pages to understand what he'd done, rather than blindly reverting.  - David Biddulph (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Please Help again

I'm doing my best with the article but I cannot cope with ongoing accusations from Theroadislong. He may be trying to help but his accusations of deletions on my part which I hadn't even a chance to do (not even having had time to look to see what his note referred to) is not something I can't handle. I'm not sure if you can view his comments - they don't appear on his page. He's clearly paranoid because of citation deletions I made inadvertently last week when I thought I was managing them. Is it possible to exclude him from my work? Please. That is not to say that I don't welcome help from others. Of course I do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balquhidder2013 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In you reverted a number of the changes which Theroadislong had made in his preceding series of edits, so there is no point pretending that you didn't.  No, you can't exclude him;  Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and any editor can try to improve an article or a draft.  If you keep on upsetting him he may decide to abandon trying to help you, and leave your draft in danger of being declined when you submit it for review, or of being deleted if it were moved to mainspace.  Calling other editors "paranoid" is not likely to encourage people to help you.  Sorry to be blunt, but you did ask.  --David Biddulph (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The help issue
I'm sorry but I did not change his edits. At the point I noticed his comments I had only been back to the text (within seconds to enter a space and then a comma - perhaps in reverse order. I don't even know what he was alluding to at that point. I know I click a couple of 'thanks' at some point but that's all I remember. I had been busy working on the text until that point and had no way to see his notes at the same time. Believe me that is truly the case. You're now making me wonder if it was the undo button which I've never knowingly used? This is all too much for me.Balquhidder2013 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The diff shows clearly that you did, whether you intended to or not. You say "I had been busy working on the text until that point", so it is possible that you started your edit from an earlier version before his changes, rather than the current one after his changes, and that you didn't check the eventual effect of your changes when you'd finished them.  You can't always rely on the software to prevent edit conflicts, so it is safest to look at the diff, and of course particularly so if someone flags up a problem as in this case. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 180.234.x.x
Hello, David, and thanks for your email. I originally wrote that the disruption went back "at least as far back as July" because at the time that was as far back as I had seen, but a few minutes later I saw other edits which seemed to be likely to be the same editor, going back very much further, as you have mentioned. At the time when I wrote that, I had had a look at recent contributions from the IP range 180.234.0.0/17, which was the smallest blockable range covering the IP addresses I had seen. (I don't know whether you know how IP ranges work, but that means all IP addresses from 180.234.0.0 to 180.234.128.0.) I had seen a number of edits which did not seem to be the same editor, and some of them were constructive. Having read your email, I have now looked more thoroughly at the history of that range. The substantial majority of edits do seem to be the same editor, and even among those that don't seem to be him/her, many are vandalism or other unconstructive editing. Combining that with the fact that the problem goes back much further than I realised at first, I have decided that the benefit of a range block far outweighs the collateral damage that is likely, so I shall go ahead and block the range. As for your suggestion that a block might persuade the ISP to do something about their abusive subscriber, I'm afraid experience shows that ISPs will almost never take any action unless they see a prospect of legal action, and they are usually not remotely interested in dealing with disruptive editing to Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the trouble to look at the idea of a range block again, and I'm glad to hear that you've come to the same conclusion that I have. I fear you may be right about the ISP, but hopefully the range block will deal with the problem and avoid the work load of other editors trying to revert the vandalism.  Looking at how widespread the vandalism has been, I'm sure that there are countless instances which haven't yet been spotted or reverted, but hopefully the most severe cases will be spotted & reverted in due course.  Thanks again. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can hope so. I made a small mistake above, not important, but I may as well get it right. 180.234.0.0/17 does not mean all IP addresses from 180.234.0.0 to 180.234.128.0, it means all IP addresses from 180.234.0.0 to 180.234.127.255. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your range block has obviously been very useful, thank you, but I see this morning we have Special:Contributions/180.234.231.231 looking very similar. Any thoughts?  --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * When making IP range blocks, it is often difficult to know how wide a range to block. Obviously, to minimise collateral damage, we aim to block the smallest range that covers all the IP addresses that are known to have been used by the disruptive editor, but quite often it turns out that there are more IP addresses that have not been noticed, covering a wider range, and that is what has happened here. As far as I can see, the vast majority of edits by this vandal have been from the range I blocked, but having been alerted by you to another IP address, I have made checks around that one, and I now see that the vandal has occasionally used IP addresses in the range 180.234.224.0/19 (i.e. IP addresses from 180.234.224.0 to 180.234.239.255). I have found uses of that range going back as far as July, and there may be more from earlier. That IP range has been used only occasionally, far less often than the other range (which is, of course, why I missed it before), and there is a larger proportion of edits that don't seem to be from this vandal than in the other range, making a long range block not very attractive. Nevertheless, I have put a block on the range, ostensibly set to last for two years, but in fact I intend to come back and shorten the block length after a while: my hope is that if the vandal believes the block is going to last for two years, he or she may not return when the block is really lifted. Obviously, there is no certainty of success, but it's worth a try, and at the very least it will make it less easy for the vandal for a little while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * . Looks like the old culprit is back again. Special:Contributions/180.234.61.88 if not others. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted obvious vandalism to Template:International cricket tours of New Zealand and Template:International cricket tours of India, but I assume that most of the other edits are suspect, as in the past. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:ICC Cricket World Cup hosts, International cricket in 2016–17, and (one of his favourite old targets) Eden Gardens are others that I've reverted. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP address, and reverted a lot of editing both by that IP address and by others that I found have edited some of the same articles in the last couple of months. I'm not even checking what all the edits are: a long-term block-evading editor can expect any editing to be reverted, as that is one of the very few methods which stand at least some chance of dissuading them. I may come back to this sometime and look into whether any more range blocks and/or article protections might be worth considering, but today I have no more time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . If you're not going to reinstate the range block, Special:Contributions/180.234.58.150 may be another to watch when you have time.  - David Biddulph (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked that IP address for a year, and the whole 180.234.x.x range for three days. I think a much longer range block may well be justified, but the tool for checking range blocks is currently in one of its very frequent periods of not responding, and I am very reluctant to block any IP range, especially such a large one, without first checking the history of recent editing from the range. I hope to be able to check within the next day or so: if you don't hear from me again within 48 hours please feel welcome to contact me again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now been able to check the contributions history over several months. Unfortunately, there are far too many edits that don't seem to have any connection with this editor to justify a long-term block on the whole range. However, looking at smaller ranges, there are a few (such as 180.234.51.x) which seem to have been used exclusively or almost exclusively by this editor, many others (such as 180.234.233.x) which have been used exclusively or almost exclusively by other editors, and very few (such as 180.234.111.x) which seem to have been used to a significant extent by both. I have therefore been able to block a number of smaller ranges which together cover the vast majority of this editor's edits in recent months, while risking only a very small amount of collateral damage. I'm afraid that will be far from a perfect solution, as the editor will probably just pop up in one of the ranges which he/she has not yet used, or not recently used, so that I haven't blocked them; we will just have to block each new range as it comes up. Far from perfect, but I think that's the best I can do, and a good deal more than many administrators would have done, as they would have just said "too many edits in the range from other editors for a range block", and left it at that.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
Thanks for these. I'll check them out later today. Balquhidder2013 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks
Many thanks for sorting that for me. I spent hours on it. Coding is obviously not my strength! Balquhidder2013 (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

all you do
is revert.Phd8511 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Where a revert is the appropriate action to improve the encyclopedia, that is what I do. Was there something specific which concerned you? If you are referring to your addition of HMS Artful to the list of commissioned ships of the Royal Navy I explained in reverting your edit (as I had done in reverting a number of previous similar edits from other editors) that she is not due to be commissioned until 2016.  I had some time ago added the relevant information, with a source, to the article on HMS Artful (S121).  The RN hadn't helped with a press relesase about a families days which some people read as implying that she had already been commissioned.  --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

UAV
Hello, I just seen you undid an edit on UAV quicker than me, whom am somewhat very interested in this article as I am currently rewritting it.

Are you specially interested about UAVs or was it just some patrolling duty? In the first case I would greatly enjoy discussion with you. BR Maxorazon (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I just spotted the obvious vandalism. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How is something verifiable if it's not on the internet? I could list the publications Ive gotten the info from but there would be no way of anyone verifying the info unless they had the same magazine articles.

Which, lets be honest, few have a collection of old jet ski magazines from the mid 90's laying around.

So long as I properly cite the magazines as references, will I satisfy the wiki guidlines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

References not on internet
Thx for the warm welcome. Im havibg some issues with references on my first article entry. Most all of the data ive compiled are via archives of published watercraft magazines that were around pre-dating internet archiving. So Im catching a lot pf flak from wiki users who dont find the information credible. Is it possible to cite references that cannot be verified via the internet?

Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * References don't need to be on the internet, so long as they have been published and can be verified. See WP:references and WP:reliable sources. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My previous question didnt post so i will re ask it.

How are my sources verifiable when they are obscure watercraft publications that few would have access too 20 years after they were issued?

Can I simply list them as references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In principle they might perhaps find the magazine in a library. If it might be difficult to find, it would be wise to use the   parameter of the citation template to quote the relevant text from the ref.
 * And you'll see that you put your earlier reply into the previous section. I've struck it through. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Skipp Williamson article
Hi I just went to see if you had replied to my message regarding the Skipp Williamson article but I can no longer see it. Has it been removed? I don't want to do anything wrong but I don't understand some of the terminology that is used here. I apologise for not using the edit summary. I will ensure I do so going forward. I would like to remove the mention of the patent from the article altogether along with it's references. Can you please advise what it the best and simplest way to do this so it is in line with Wiki's guidelines? Thanks for your guidance 2601:C0:8002:33E0:A8FF:C140:56A7:B668 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about your question on the help desk, it is still there, but nobody has answered it. Unless you understand referencing, you oughtn't to remove material from the article (and even if you do understand referencing, there needs to be a good reason for removing it).  If you have further information such as a source that says it was unpatentable, your safest bet would be to mention it on the talk page of the article. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 Summer Olympics
This needs to be added in the Concerns and Controversies section. 70.45.248.243 (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary, the problem was that the reference was undefined. If you look at ref 59 in the "References" section in that version it says: " Cite error: The named reference BBC-2016-01-24a was invoked but never defined (see the help page)". --David Biddulph (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Smeone else did so, as I could do nothing about it on fixing cite reference (lack of experience, too). 70.45.248.243 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased statements against Islamic Development Bank
It seems the some of the statements linking the Islamic Development Bank with Terrorist organisations are biased. For eg. Daniel Pipes is biased against Islam and his write up cannot be taken as a genuine reference. He says that the Al Quds and Al Aqsa fund are used to promote terrorism, where as please see the link below which shows that Al Aqsa fund joins with UNRWA to work for the Educational project in Jerusalem.

Kindly look at the section properly as this is maligning the reputation of the institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noufalkareem (talk • contribs) 11:34, 1 February 2016‎ (UTC)


 * If there are problems with the article, the place to discuss it is not my user talk page but the article's talk page. A question was asked at the Teahouse, but the advice given there has not been followed. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry...
It looks like you saved in the middle of two of my edits... do you mind doing the edit again? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

NATO
The idea is to put the category - of which NATO is the leading article - in to the superior category of Category:Organisations based in Brussels, or better in to Category:International organisations based in Belgium. That way it encompasses all the associated articles as well. That is what we do with the European Union, and other complex organisations.Rathfelder (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying. Category:Council of the European Union‎ and Category:European Commission‎ are sub-categories of Category:Organisations based in Brussels.  If Category:NATO were similarly a subcategory of Category:Organisations based in Brussels then I could have understood your removing the article NATO from the Brussels category, but it isn't, which is why I reverted your edit as obviously NATO is an organisation based in Brussels and belongs in the category. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale
Hi David Thanks for your guidance. I tried to do the accent on the word 'pathe' as you have often kindly suggested - but I failed. Please fix up. I will try to learn this skill when I am not so tired Thanks Srbernadette (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You've been told how to do it. If you are not capable of copying and pasting a character from one page to another you need to learn those sorts of basics before coming back to Wikipedia.  You were also apparently incapable of inserting a space or deleting a space.  I'm sure that you'll be able to find a computing basics course either at your local school or college or online.  --David Biddulph (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Boat 7
has never ever been officially named by the MOD or parliament and webarchives don't count. BAE as well calls it Boat 7.Phd8511 (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was an RN page. I'm not disputing that it is currently being referred to merely as boat 7, but it was previously referred to as Ajax. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are going against facts. Typical.Phd8511 (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The facts are that the RN website referred to her as Ajax. As I said earlier, I'm not disputing that she is currently referred to as boat 7, but she was previously referred to as Ajax.  We'll wait to see what happens when the naming ceremony happens (sadly much too far in the future).  I agree with you that the change back to "boat 7" in official references happened before the army vehicle naming, so that is a red herring. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR warnings and abuse.
David, regarding the edit warring warning that you left at User talk:Hengistmate. I feel you should be aware of this clear abuse (see the edit summary - it is not acceptable to describe someone as a troll when they are leaving a perfectly justified warning). In any case the warning was ignored - see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

What with that, the ANI case and the SPI case, something must be done. How many editors manage to end up 3 forums? It's not as though it is forum shopping because the complaints are for different parts of the behaviour. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Text in my sandbox, question
Hi, do you can check my English in my sandbox where I work? I asked few times different people to did it, but I still don't know what I have to think about the text. Is this generally urdenstandable and is suitable to continue in the main space? Can you tell my something about the text? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I gave my advice at Help desk/Archives/2016 February 16, but I have no further interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, so I include it to main space in the near futhure and see what's next. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Now, it has got much right English than in February (I not remember say it) Dawid2009 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Newcomers...
Hey. I'm here re USer:Xtactic Gamer. Easy there now! He is a new guy. Remember: WP:BITE. I gave him a soft warning. If he exhibited resistence, only then he can be blocked. Believe me, no one will block him if he does it twice more. Patience is the key. Who knows, maybe he becomes our new friends after he learned the ropes. Fleet Command (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If it had been an honest mistake, then it's fine to give a soft warning, but the numbers in this edit were obviously invented and deliberate vandalism. You are taking WP:AGF too far.  --David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I am taking it one edit farther. One edit isn't much. There is an old adage about giving someone enough ropes. Fleet Command (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks on teahouse reply
Thank you so so much Rajarshi Rit 18:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

Anna Watkins
Sorry about the failure to spot you had added citation. Hatchmight (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IP user 95.149.244.4
Should we report him/her? Like you said, he's been warned numerous times under his previous IP addresses. -- Peter Sam Fan  &#124; chat?    14:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Already done. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just found that out. Oh, well. Peter Sam Fan   &#124; chat?    14:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)