User talk:David Underdown/Archive 4

Britain, RN
I don't disagree with your conclusion, just your reasoning. (OK, I'm being picky.) I won't oppose taking it out. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  11:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation
David I dispute this use of a lower case r when referring to the Regiment (itself). In cases like this I have always been taught to use capitalisation. If you referring to "a regiment" then lower case is used. This applies to all regiments of the British Army. I have sought advice from my own regsec on this and had it confirmed. Regardless of Wikipedia style there are some things which much be adhered to in English grammar and spelling when talking about British affairs. I hope you understand? Thunderer (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: general editing point
David - I presume you're referring to the Wiki links in the headings? Okay, I'll remove Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for help
Hey, can i request you to copyedit about the field hockey related article? Because i not have good english, so will you willing to help out if i need you to be? Thank you. --Aleen f 1 09:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try, but I may be a bit short of time over the next few weeks. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please copyedit Hockey Junior World Cup, you can rewrite anything based on your knowledge. --Aleen f 1 08:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, sorry, a bit confuse for you. I dunno what format in 2009, so i said unjustified, it is wrong i think, hopefully you get my point. --Aleen f 1 10:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
You would be welcome to join the mediation. I've added your name to the mediation case page. Please sign in here and make an opening statement on the case talk page. 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation 2
Just curious why you feel you need mediation on the UDR article. BigDunc Talk 22:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Massie
Thanks a lot for contributing military information etc to the Jack Massie article, it's looking much better. If you have a spare couple of minutes sometime could you please take a look at the references ... there seems to be some error and the sixth one isn't appearing properly. I tried to fix this myself but couldn't work out where the problem layed so if you could have a go that would be great. Thanks again. Jevansen (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Episcopal Church
FYI, the name of the "holding company" as you put it in reverting my edit is the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It really is not a "holding company" but the true corporate identity of the church. Apparently for historical and legal reasons as well as political reasons today, the general convention has seen fit not to go through the legalities of having it changed. While I don't thank you for the revert, I do thank you for adding the second common name in the lead. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Barttelot's
Hi David, would you mind having a look at this early draft article and make any changes or additions, before I load it up on Wikipedia in the next few days. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: New Precentor @ Ely Cathedral
Hi David. Thanks for correcting the reference I placed on the Ely Cathedral article; in all the time I have been on Wikipedia, near on 4 1/2 years now, I still haven't managed to get the hang of doing those inline refs yet. I must wind up reading the manual :) Look forward to being at the cathedral on 29th November, I may even try to get some photos of his installation service.  Regards and thanks, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

John Stephenson (cricketer, born 1907): thank you
Thanks for adding details of Stephenson's army career. As must be evident, I've had to rely almost exclusively on cricketing sources, and Wisden obituaries tend to skip over military service very lightly. Loganberry (Talk) 00:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Fire of London
Great Fire of London has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Joseph Sheehan
Thank you for your useful "tweaks" and retrieved ex-links. Just one point: his biography is a transcript of that officially recorded in the British War Office publication "Soldiers Died in the Great War" which uses the term "He met his death on .. etc." I would prefere to keep the original version even if expressed differently today, hope you can bear with this ? GretingsOsioni (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes
Hey, thanks for that. I'll take it out of the review. Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this?
Hi David, It appears that Thunderer has left the mediation again but I was hoping that we could continue to work through the consensus building exercise together. No one at the minute seems to know how you close a discussion like the one we are having right now, so your thoughts would be helpful? I was going to suggest that we rewrite the section again, using all the quoted sources I’ve provided and present it as the final review, what do you think? Thanks, -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The National Archives
Hey there. I was browsing the Logistics Department and saw that you are in the National Archives almost every day. Do you work at the Archives, or just use it for research? I ask because I'm an MA Student up at the University of Warwick who needs to get to TNA for research for my dissertation, and I've never been there before. I was wondering if I might ask a few questions about the Archives, if that'd be okay. Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Start of WW2
Hi David, I added September 1st as a start of the war since this is the date most people use but then I realized that editors disscussed that among themselved and desided to drop the number all together. Thanks for correcting. P.S. Would you like to comment on Warsaw Rising picture at the WW2 discussion page perhaps []? --Jacurek (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard
Hi, you obviously have access to the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and have read the entry on Hesketh-Prichard. Would you consider e-mailing that article it to me? It would save me another trip to the library. Obviously it can't be publicly posted due to copyright reasons, but I would be very interested in seeing if I missed anything. If for any reason you would rather not, including copyright, I completely understand.

I'm looking into the rank of his father-in-law, and will update the article as soon as I find anything. My hand-written notes from Parker's biography simply say "Her father was General B.W. Ryall, commander 8th Bengal infantry", but it is quite possible I made an error in writing this. Regards, &mdash; BillC talk 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This link, if the snippet view works for you, shows I was wrong, it was the 8th Bengal Cavalry. This site, though probably not WP:RS, goes into more detail. The second Afghan war, 1878-79-80: its causes, its conduct and its consequences mentions him by name as commander of that regiment, but with the then rank of Colonel, and is referring to early 1879, 2.5 years in the future. I've amended the article a little, see what you think. &mdash; BillC talk 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the London Gazette, his promotion dates:
 * Promoted to Major, 17 September, 1858. Gazette Issue 22686, 2 December 1862.
 * Promoted to Lt Colonel, 14 January, 1872. Gazette Issue 23889, 23 August 1872.
 * Promoted to Colonel, 14 January, 1877. Gazette Issue 24445, 20 April 1877.
 * Promoted to Major-General on retirement, 12 September, 1881. Gazette Issue 25023, 7 October 1881.
 * My apologies for continuing to spam you in this manner! &mdash; BillC talk 00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mailed link came across fine, thanks, and I saved off the text. It was comforting to see that there was good alignment between the ODNB article and our one, in terms of facts, weighting and narrative order. Maybe a few tweaks to make, but I can certainly bolster the citations now. Thanks! &mdash; BillC talk 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bradford fire
Hey, thanks for the tweaks with the prose on Bradford City stadium fire. I intend to try do quite a bit more work on it. And once I get my hands on Paul Firth's book, I'll see how much I can get done on the article. I'd be very grateful if you can keep tidying up any prose issues for me. Peanut4 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland/Northern Ireland
What's the story on the divisions? The borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland don't line up with the diocesan structure, there are dioceses on both sides of the line. I've been trying to sort it out myself, but that would be OR to publish a map showing the differences between the two. Thanks for your excellent change to the list article. I have been greatly heartened to see it finally stay. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ireland was only divided into two entities in the 1920s, the Diocesan boundaries are much more ancient and both the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of Ireland continue to be organised on an all-Ireland basis, not really taking much account of the international border. Similarly, the Roman Catholic Church ignores the England-Wales border (though this isnt an international border of course) and what is now the Church in Wales only split from the Church of England in the 1920s, and the ecclesiatical boundaries don't follow the civil boundaries in that case either.  This is the problem and why we've been trying to make clear to you that your categorisation scheme may need some adjustment in the case of the British Isles.  There's also the issue of the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.  I don't know quite how the Roman Catholic Church treats these, but legally they are not strictly part fo the United Kingdom proper.  David Underdown (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

North Irish Horse
Hi David, is this the official title "9th (Londonderry) HAA Regiment" and if so, could we reference it. I think this would be helpful, because from experiance the whole Derry issue will get out of hand. We have consensus on this at WP:IMOS, which has worked. Even with references however, we do still stick with that agreement because for everyone there is always an alternative one. Thanks -- Domer48 'fenian'  10:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 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) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward Robert Robson
Good catch! but your citation to London Gazette didn't take; I substituted another. Can you trace yours and repair the link, within that same html?--Wetman (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Frederick Stephenson
Thank you for your work in bringing this article up to scratch. Jack1956 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Currie
Thanks for adding additional foreign decorations. Excellent work.Guinness323 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Edmond Knox
Most impressed by your additions to this new page, suddenly it is looking far better. Strawless (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Hello, I noticed that you had an interest in this subject and - although the RMs have closed, and failed, and hence it is merely academic - I wonder if you might give me your opinion on them: Mooretwin (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
 * Special Protection Area
 * Site of Special Scientific Interest
 * Special Area of Conservation
 * Special Category Status

UDR
David: The content of the UDR mediation has been restored here. Please ensure that you only copy reference material rather than any aspects of the dispute. I agree that you should get the agreement of the parties for any comments by them. Sunray (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Johnes
Hi. Thanks for all your help with Thomas Johnes ~ Geaugagrrl talk 04:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)P

Thomas Johnes
Hi David, Thanks for your help with TJ. I am having a mental block about working on this rewrite. I moved it to my sb3 location, if you want to work on it there? Not sure if this is allowed or not. I will try to merge your latest changes to sb3 unless you want to. Bye for now. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

London Gazette
Thanks for spotting the change and making the amendments to the template to suit the new format URLs. I've made some further changes to the /doc and /parameterlist subpages to bring the methodology up to date and have deleted most of the references to the obsolete "notarchive" parameter, moving the information into a new Obsolete parameter section to explain why users might see it in some links.

I must say that the new URLs are much simpler and straightforward to read and understand than the original version or even the recently replaced version. If they had always been like that, I may well not have created the template.

The other good news is that Gazette now appears to be fully on-line right back to the first issue of the Oxford Gazette published on 7 November 1665. I have added another option to the city parameter to provide the ability to show links to the first 23 issues under that name, e.g. --DavidCane (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

re: London Gazette url has changed
Thanks for the update, David. I noticed the links weren't working, and was thinking about leaving you a note to see if you could ammend the problem, but you have done so already so there is no need. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, David! Craigy (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the further update. From what I remember, 1665-1685 was missing a few months ago but now all seems to be there. 1985 was also uploaded recently, incase you noticed that was missing before. Was it originally published in Oxford or something? I don't think a court was held in C2's reign, so I wonder how 'Oxford' came about? Craigy (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well remembered! My Stuart history fails me...Craigy (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cavalié Mercer
Thanks for your contributions on this article. I have posted on the Talk page about giving exact dates.

The promotion dates make the date of retirement in the infobox seem dubious. Haythornthwaite suggests he never retired from the Active List. Cyclopaedic (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reconnoitring
You're right on both counts: it was in a quotation, which I failed to notice, as it was somewhat strung out; it was correctly spelled (or spelt), but my spelling checker didn't think so, though it knew (or I had already taught it) about 'reconnoitre' and many other British spellings. Now it knows. Thanks for the alert, and happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Scotland
David, I just wanted to tell you how thrilled I am by all the great work you did on Col. Scotland! I didn't even know where to begin. That's just magnificent. Thank you so much. Stetsonharry (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

QE 2 addition "undo"
Thank you for you're explanation of you're retrace regarding QE2.

I have restructured and shortened the sentence in order for it to sound less biased and provide wiki users with a quick resolve to asking "why?"

Toon ToonIsALoon (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion
Regarding these three edits, I would be interested to learn whether you think my response is reasonable, or whether you think I'm over-reacting. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Australian Victoria Cross recipients
Hi David. With you knowledge and expertise, I was wondering if you would mind commenting here? User:Anotherclown went around to all of the Aussie VC articles and added a "See also" section containing one link to the List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. I reverted some of these additions and posted a comment on his talk page converying that, realistically, it is useless and adds no value due to the existance of the three categories on Aussie VC recipients. User:Pdfpdf the came in and disagreed with me because he believes it is easier then to click on the category link than the "See also" link. Well, there is the background to it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, as is very often the case, Bryce has once again misquoted me:
 * "I disagee. Yes, the link appears in the cat, but why make connection to such an interesting page an obscure two step process that almost no-one will execute? "See also" draws direct attention to it."
 * Pdfpdf (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, maybe it wouldn't be wise to comment, David, the discussion seems to be going no where. Thanks for the Adrian Goldsmith stuff too; both the informative additions to the article and the link on my page. Also, I've left a comment on your DYK nom for Mark Donaldson. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Donaldson
Regarding this edit, I disagree. The actual and formal citation (and I assume this is it, unless it will later be included in the London Gazette or the Australian equivalent) should be clearly marked out as an external link on its own rather than hidden amongst the other notes. The citation is the formal record of the events that saw Donaldson awarded the VC and deserves more prominence than just another note. I see no reason to make it harder rather than easier for the reader to find the citation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The citation is not listed separately for any of the articles on VC recipients which have reached featured status, nor does it really seem to meet the requirements listed under WP:ELYES, except stretching the "official page" criterion somewhat. I assume it will eventually feature in the Commonwealth Gazette (since it's a specifically Australian award it won't appear in the London Gazette).  We do normally try and quote the citation pretty fully int he article - I'm not quite clear how we stand on copyright in this particular instance, I believe Australia has weaker restrictions on Crown Copyright material than the UK, but I'm not entirely clear whether we can actually quote in full or not.  David Underdown (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for Australia
Thanks for cleaning up after me. I find it useful to see what you've changed, and now I have a good selection of examples for my future use. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)