User talk:Indefatigable

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much for the recognition. The Louis Riel article itself is fairly mature; there's not to much left to add to it. But there are related articles that could be created or added to, such as details on Middleton's expedition, or details on the three columns he launched, from Qu'Appelle, Swift Current, and Calgary.

Royal Winnipeg Rifles
You changed Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders saying they never had a Col in Chief. Do the Royal Winnipeg Rifles? I haven't found any mention of it on their website: https://www.theroyalwinnipegrifles.com/ Cheers Adakiko (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit comment on SD&GH was actually a mistake - Elizabeth II was their colonel-in-chief. I discovered my error shortly after the edit. But the edit itself was correct, as the regiment no longer has a colonel-in-chief. For the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, the King is their colonel-in-chief - this source confirms it. Indefatigable (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I did search without success. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Distinctive environmental uniforms
Hi. Sorry, but you are incorrect. The term "environmental" is correct. It appears directly on page 1-1 of the correct CAF dress instructions, seen here. Please revert all changes making the incorrect change. oknazevad (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Oknazevad, that's interesting. Yet on page 1-2 of the same document, it has "Distinctive Environment Uniform (DEU). Uniforms which identify ...". I was going by the HTML version of the same doc, which has "distinctive environment uniform" in its definition section, which I assumed would be the section that had been proofread most closely. I guess if the CF can't be consistent in its own documentation, we don't need to either. I'll do some reverts. Indefatigable (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I know that "environmental" is far more widely used in outside sources as well, but since it's a technical term, the technical definition should be used. But apparently they are less than consistent themselves. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
You changed United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom at British Arctic Territories. However, in 1880 when handover occurred the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did not come into existence until 1922. I see you did the same thing at Canada and Alaska boundary dispute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @CambridgeBayWeather, I'll stop making those changes. In my opinion, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland should just be a redirect to United Kingdom - they are the same state, just with a slight name change. It's not like UKGBI dissolved at some point in the 1920s and was replaced with a new state UKGBNI with a new constitution. But I see that my view is not widely held here and that this kind of edit is not the correct way to change those two articles. But having those articles separate is as absurd as it would be to have Yukon and Yukon Territory separate articles because it changed name in 2002. 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Indefatigable (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They are different. They didn't just change the name the area occupied changed. Prior to 1922 the island of Ireland was one political unit governed by the British. After 1922 the island was divided and the Republic of Ireland became an independent country with Northern Ireland still being governed by the British. It's not just a name change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

XI Canadian Field Ambulance
Hello,

Thank you for your recent contributions to this article, I am very grateful for your assistance (plus the countless other times you've caught my grammar and formatting mistakes). I just have one concern about a change you made to the article. You removed the years from the following: "The unit finally left Notre-Dame-au-Bois on April 24 [1918], after being seen off by most of the villagers. They arrived in Canada in May [1919], and shortly thereafter demobilized in Toronto, Ontario."

I believe the years are important to keep, because according to Library and Archives Canada (page 27), the unit did not demobilize in Toronto until May 1919. By removing the years, I think the article implies that they moved off the (former) front in April 1918, and demobilized just one month later, rather than one year and one moth later. Would you object if I put the years back in those two spots?

All the best,

CplKlinger (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @CplKlinger: No objection at all. Since the passage about Notre-Dame-au-Bois comes after the mention of the Armistice, I assumed that the 1918 date for their arrival was an error and that 1919 was intended. So I changed that to 1919 and removed the year from the subsequent events that I assumed also happened in 1919. But if my assumptions are wrong, please put in the correct years on the dates. Indefatigable (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response, but I need to apologize. It has been a while since I read the article, and I misread the last paragraph. I forgot that I already wrote about their postwar experiences in Europe, and messaged you before realizing my error. You were correct in assuming that it was a typo. CplKlinger (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Military police
Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_police#Photographs Dreddmoto (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Infantry regiments of Canada until 1935
Dear Indefatigable, thank you for all your hard work on Canadian units, especially cleaning up after LordHood2552. "Former" is not a term we use in WP military unit categories, but there was a clear break in the Canadian infantry in 1936, with a large-scale reorganization and reduction in the number of units. It's quite acceptable to subdivide a large category of over 20 members into subcats; this is the date I am considering. Your thoughts welcome - let's continue this process!! Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just seen that Canadiansoldiers.com makes the break at 1920. Your thoughts welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buckshot06 - The reorgs of 1920 and 1936 were both pretty major. If we can only choose one of those dates as the major dividing point in Militia history, it's tough to choose which one. However, it looks like the authors of Canadian Soldiers have already gone through the process and picked 1920. That may be good sign that 1920's the better milestone to pick. Indefatigable (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The category has now been created at Category:Infantry regiments of Canada until 1920. Feel free to help me move articles or doing some of the very-short-article merging as you will see I have been doing in my previous edits. Any articles under 36 kB with limited growth potential can be upmerged, in general accordance with WP:SIZERULE. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Good faith meets unyeilding policy
Dear Indefatigable. I am reaching out to you having seen your work over decades. You are an experienced administrator who has built wiki with tolerance and compassion. I am a casual user. I occasionally make minor good faith revisions based on personal knowledge to clarify or enhance a topic of personal interest. Recently, I generated an editing war where a user has taken the view that the article Cadet Instructor Cadre was not sourced enough and deleted 26,236 of 30078 bytes that had been in place for years without concern. You are in the edit history as early as 2004. While I was not impolite, I was cheeky in my attempt to restore the item and was banned for a couple of days. While the article has some issues, it is a comprehensive source of correct information for parents, cadets and potential leaders not found elsewhere. In my view should be allowed to stand. Thank you for your attention and assistance. 24.69.169.21 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

From Enoska13
Hello: Your from Canada and the first down or downs in American Football has been recognized in other uses as the 1st n 10 yellow first down line, and again in the First down laser line systems. I posted it under the proper other uses title of first down or downs in Gridiron football. I’m not going to argue with you, but would like you to re post this important to the American Football down systems in other uses. I cited the facts and hope you can agree. Enoska13 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Any discussion about the content of the article Down (gridiron football) should take place at Talk:Down (gridiron football). Indefatigable (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North American railroad signals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locomotive engineer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Red Deer, Alberta
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Red Deer, Alberta, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Indefatigable&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1180465962 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Deer,_Alberta&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1180465962%7CRed%20Deer,%20Alberta%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Masterhatch (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Masterhatch (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Apothecaries' system
Apothecaries' system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southgate Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southgate LRT Station.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

BC versus BCE
I notice you reverted an IP user who, in the article on Lunar calendars, changed BC to BCE. I, myself, had thought of putting a message on the User's Talk page; I thought of pointing out that in the absence of special considerations, BC and BCE are equally acceptable, and that the style guidelines say that we don't edit one to the other without reason. But then I looked and found out that elsewhere, the article refers to CE. The guidelines also say we should be consistent in any one article. So I guess that IP person's edit was not wrong. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @AzseicsoK, thanks for pointing that out. An article should be consistent. If the IP editor had used an edit summary explaining the intention, I would not have been so hasty. Indefatigable (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)