User talk:George.Hutchinson

RE:Battle of the Hook
Hey George the source i have says that the battle took place in late July just before the armistice. It is defiantly a different battle but a later one, I wonder how many times this location was the site of a battle. This battle does deserve its own article probable as the Fourth battle of the Hook. Hossen27 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would create 4 separate articles with the first three named as (First, Second and Third) Battle of the Hook. Although the battle honours are Samichon the article calls it the battle of the hook. I do believe the army calls it the Battle of Samichon though so it should be named that. Hossen27 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Hossen.


 * Different armies labelled it differently. there had been several confrontations on that strongpoint, that's why the British Army used the term 3rd Battle of the Hook. I'm vaguely aware that the Australians might use the Samichong label, as is their right.
 * The British Army relieved a USMC division in the Spring of '53, and they in turn were relieved by others, possibly an Australian contingent.


 * My own advice, for what it's worth, is to leave well alone. The soldiers who defended the Hook position in May '53 know it as the 3rd Battle of the Hook, and that's how it's recorded on their Battle Honours. See the Wiki page for the 1DWR battle honours here:
 * 
 * I'd regard a move to change names around as disrespectful to those soldiers of all the armies that contributed, as I'm certain they would.
 * George.Hutchinson (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Bismarck Chase
it seems that the link to HMAS Nestor was placed back in the article, thanks for the heads up though. Hossen27 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BilCat
I notice you left a note on this user's talk page. I just wanted to let you know he is on a Wikibreak seemingly due to health issues, so you may not hear back from him for some time, if at all. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type 45
Hi George. I have replied to your comment on my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Kind regards, Mark83 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The World According To Ronald Reagan
I saw that you said that we needed an updated version of the poster for George W. Bush, so I'm posting a link to a similar poster that I saw. Worms42 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/298202156_73e54012fa_b.jpg

Trinidad Coastguard vessels
Hi. Yeah I heard about this but we can't predict what will happen, the Brunei arbitration took 3 years. BAE Systems won that one, but I think I read that Trinidad & Tobago are going to claim breach of contract. I would say they have a strong case but then it would depend on the wording of the contract.. and I'm no lawyer! :) Mark83 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

MS Queen Elizabeth
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on MS Queen Elizabeth. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.


 * This is in relation to the gallery. Please see WP:NOTLINK and the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not replying earlier, only just noticed your post on my talk page. As explained above, 3RR is not a right. That said, it appears that the warning to both editors had the desired effect, and the warring stopped. Therefore there isn't any need to take any further action. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563359039 your edit] to Port of Southampton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2013.

Talkback
Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 15:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian Burnell link broken
Hi, I'll enter the attribution as requested, but the link you have for Brian Burnell's site is broken in several waysL

1. it has a space in it

2. the domain nuclear-weapons.info returns 'this page has just been registered' (that may simply mean that you or Brian haven't put anything there)

PeterParslow (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (logged in now!)


 * Hi Peter. Just checked Brian's site at http://nuclear-weapons.info/index.htm and it worked for me. Perhaps the link itself was corrupted or misspelt. George.Hutchinson (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)