User talk:Navops47/Archive 7

Please comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Raymond Chan Chi-chuen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William McKinley
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William McKinley. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bronze Wolf Award
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bronze Wolf Award. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anatole Klyosov
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anatole Klyosov. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Admiralty War Staff copyright concern
I have removed content you copied to the above article from http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Admiralty_War_Staff. Unfortunately the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use or derivative works, and our license does. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Have re-written the content myself and I was not aware that WP was commercial licence I assumed that as a Nonprofit organization and my understanding of that definition is the sole purpose is not to gain commercially from making any profit on either its products or services also the dreadnought project consistently attributes WP on almost all of its articles as source so that's very confusing.--Navops47 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not that Wikipedia itself is commercial – indeed, the Wikimedia Foundation behind the project is non-profit – but our text can be used for commercial means by others, like making and selling a book composed of Wikipedia articles (see WP:REUSE). Wikipedia's text is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which allows other people or organizations to re-use or modify Wikipedia content in any manner they see fit, including for commercial use, so long as the original Wikipedia contributors are credited and any new creations using Wikipedia text are licensed similarly. The Dreadnought Project is allowed to incorporate Wikipedia text if it follows those rules.
 * On the other hand, The Dreadnought Project uses a much more restrictive license that doesn't allow commercial use or modification at all. Text originating there can't be imported to Wikipedia because any modification or commercial use of that text by other parties would be a violation of the original license terms. For more information, please see WP:COMPLIC. The rest of the copyright FAQ is worth a read as well. Hope that helps. clpo13(talk) 22:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to explain the pitfalls of these licences and interpretation of them.--Navops47 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ehsan Sehgal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ehsan Sehgal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Royal Naval Hospital
The way the lede is now written doesn't make sense. It currently reads:
 * "A Royal Naval Hospital (RNH) was a medical service of the Royal Navy."

This is followed by the reference to the blog you added. That blog doesn't say that. In fact it doesn't mention the term "Royal Naval Hospital".

I think you are trying to conflate 2 different ideas into one slightly less well-formed ideas. There is no doubt that the hospitals were part of the Medical Service. But they are/were not a service. They were bricks and mortar facilities and that is what the article is about.

If I could understand what you are trying to say, I would edit it, but I can't because it is not clear what youy are trying to say. As it stands, it is simply nonsense as written. I'm happy for you to have a go to make it make sense. But if you don't I will revert to lede to it's original form and move the reference to service issues into the body. CalzGuy (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Self reverted not engaging the brain hope the changes will suffice and what I should have being doing was expanding the RNMS article more particularly the history section I trust no objections to that?--Navops47 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timothy Winter
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timothy Winter. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ibn Tumart. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Royal Naval Air Service into Air Department. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Operations Division) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Operations Division, Navops47!

Wikipedia editor DarjeelingTea just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Very nice job!"

To reply, leave a comment on DarjeelingTea's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution
It appears that you have added material to the article Air Department using content from http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C715. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original author(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed web pages, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content and add a citation. It's also a good idea to place a note on the article along with your citation. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied licensed material before, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and provide attribution. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted working on to many things at the same time apologies.--Navops47 (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisbon Station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anglo-Spanish War. 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) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution
Dear Navops47, it's heartening to see you making so much use of The Dreadnought Project in your articles on Wikipedia, but decidedly less so when you decline to give us appropriate credit. Simply quoting our references, rather than the page, violates the Creative Commons license and also violates various Wikipedia guidelines on referencing of primary sources. Regards, &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Simon have replied on your talk page apology's if I have overlooked something it was not intentional.--Navops47 (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 3rd Destroyer Squadron (United Kingdom)
 * added links pointing to Squadrons and Fleets


 * Superclub
 * added a link pointing to Chelsea, New York

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Day Without a Woman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Day Without a Woman. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sampson Darrell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. 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) 10:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please read Wikipedia's definition of a minor edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Levin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Ferrie
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Ferrie. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shneur Odze
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shneur Odze. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Comptroller of the Navy (Navy Board)
Hi, I'm CapitalSasha. Navops47, thanks for creating Comptroller of the Navy (Navy Board)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. this article should make clear that this is about the UK

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there was an original article created in 2005 called Comptroller of the Navy (no mention in title of it being British) that later became a page move to Third Sea Lord however following research the earlier post holders role was completely different to that of the latter known Controller of the Navy who inherited the materiel duties of the Surveyor of the Navy. I felt it was misleading readers to include what was initially a civilian post of the Royal Navy in an article that is about a military post in the same service. I have added at the top of the article that this was a role within the British Royal Navy will this suffice? I would rather not re-direct to (Comptroller of the Navy (Royal Navy) as the former Third Sea Lord is now known as Controller.--Navops47 (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update I have asked for some constructive feedback from an administrator User: Diannaa who I have liaised with over a number of similar articles I have created in the past regarding the Royal Navy.--Navops47 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the wording makes it clear that this is a position within the British Navy and I don't think the tag is warranted. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As edited it now seems fine, thanks! CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your welcome.--Navops47 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Lenin. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Crime in Sweden
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Crime in Sweden. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to also learn
Ther is no such position as "Acting Regional Naval Commander". Acting is for military ranks, not positions. At least kindly acknowledge that.Ajaxrocks (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record I have dyslexia which is self explanatory again please take this in to account when assuming things if I added acting is because I have read it as that but was clearly wrong its hard enough editing with dyslexia at the very best of times I do my best under the circumstances happy editing.--Navops47 (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages
You need to read WP:BLANKING. You should NOT restore a message which the user has read and deleted. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood I did not see the WP: Blanking link until you highlighted and through my previous communications was trying to be helpful, thank you for your input.--Navops47 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories
Please note that articles should not be put in both a category and its parent category (e.g. if an article is in Category:Royal Navy appointments then it does not also need to be in Category:Royal Navy). This is over-categorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:DJ Award Special Award for Outstanding Contribution


Hello, Navops47. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DJ Award Special Award for Outstanding Contribution".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No I do not object to it being deleted its fine go ahead.--Navops47 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bruce Harrell
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bruce Harrell. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Brisbane International ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Brisbane_International check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Brisbane_International?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to John Lloyd, Jack Crawford, Geoff Brown, William Durham, Richard Schlesinger and Colin Long

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

6 existing Major champions defeated in finals
Hi, I'm not following what you mean here. Why isn't Cilic part of the group, since he is listed in note [b]? Gap9551 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Gap the record was added because Borg defeated 6 existing GS champions in finals who were all still competing against him on the tour at the same time (not retired) in Federer's case this is not correct he defeated 5 existing GS slam winners, before he beat Cilic some of the them had retired from the tour. Now that you have pointed to Cilic yes he has defeated 6 in total but not concurrently, We can include but we need to now need to change the wording for both because there is a distinction between the two. --Navops47 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC) 02:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again I apologies but when I keep looking at the same thing for so long you begin not to see things so I took no notice of the added additions to the notes.--Navops47 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Got it, thanks! I'm ok with either. Total GS champions would be an interesting one too (allowing for the opponent to win their Slam title(s) after the meeting, like Djokovic for Fededer). Gap9551 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have added notes to Borg's record explaining the difference between him and Federer.--Navops47 (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Winning percentage in Grand Slams
Hello Navops47, You're not right. In the year 2016 Federer has won 83% of his Grand-Slam Matches not 75%, and from 2003-2012 and 2014-2017 are 14 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JS8 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Federer is currently at 92% this season you are applying WP:Crystal Ball by adding the record when the ATP tour has not concluded yet. Baring another injury he will probably surpass it but as yet until the season is over it should not be added. --Navops47 (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, what I mean are the Grand-Slam Matches of the season, and this season is over. The record you've added is listed under the Grand-Slam section, not the overall season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JS8 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if its the GS matches okay you can change it if its the atp tour until after the ATP tour finals its not over.--Navops47 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Tournament of Champions
Hi Navops47 There is much new information on the Tournament of Champions.

First, the 1956 L.A. event was not a TOC, but rather the inaugural L.A. Masters, as the L.A. newspapers make clear.

Second, in addition to the 1957, 1958, 1959 TOC at Forest Hills, there were Australian TOC events at Sydney White City in 1957, at Kooyong Melbourne in 1958 (the richest tournament of the era), and probably Sydney again in 1959 (according to McCauley). A total of six events.

The Forest Hills TOC events were broadcast nationally in the U.S.A. by CBS television network, the only pro tournament in the U.S.A. to achieve this status.

For the 1959 Forest Hills TOC, there is an error in the score for the Hoad//Rosewall match, which was a best-of-five set match. The final set should be 6-4 for Hoad, but there is now a blank in the space for a fourth set. I refer to McCauley for this.

Thank you, 64.229.34.169 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for that I noticed you have added to Tournament of Champions (tennis), I have also added a table for the Australian TOC events and put your results in those. Would it be possible to provide the page numbers from McCauley's book in order for us to add a proper citation otherwise those results may be tagged 'No-references' many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Navops47, there is much to say on these issues, I will start here. McCauley gives the correct score for the Hoad vs. Rosewall match at the 1959 TOC as 5-7, 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 on P. 212 of his book "History of Professional Tennis". The incorrect shortened score probably derives from the New York Times article by Alison Danzig in 1959, which, for some reason, only gives the scores of the first three sets. Perhaps Danzig left the match after only three sets, thinking that it was a best-of-three (my guess on that). McCauley gives us the full score.

McCauley was wrong about the 1956 L.A. event being the TOC, and unfortunately McCauley does not always give citations of his sources. Recently, some correspondents of mine have searched local L.A. newspapers of the time and found that the 1956 event was clearly labeled L.A. Masters, the first of a long list.

McCauley on p. 98 of his book reports that the Sydney event in December, 1959 was labeled the TOC, and I have seen in a film clip that the 1957 Sydney event was also labeled TOC. A correspondent of mine has searched Melbourne newspapers from the time of the Kooyong event Jan. 22-27, 1958, which advertise the Kooyong event as TOC.

The information about the television coverage of Forest Hills TOC comes from newspapers of the time, showing a national television broadcast on CBS, with a blackout for the New York City area. Personally, I was unaware of this coverage for many years, as I relied upon the N.Y. Times as my source, which did not show any television coverage of the Forest Hills TOC. Now, it appears that was due to a local blackout. The pro tournaments in L.A. and Cleveland are shown in newspaper reports as having only local television coverage in that era. Only Forest Hills received national television broadcast.

The involvement of Ampol was hugely important. In 1958, Ampol sponsored the two big Australian tournaments in January at Sydney and Melbourne, the Melbourne TOC event was the largest in terms of prize money at 10,000 GBP, an amount not exceeded for a pro tournament in the pre-open era. This information was found in newspapers by a correspondent in another forum.

Most importantly, Ampol sponsored a world championship tennis tournament series in 1959 for the Kramer pros, consisting of 16 events, 10 of which were in Australia, and including 2 more in U.S.A. (L.A. Masters and Forest Hills TOC), Toronto, Roland Garros, Wembley, and South Africa. McCauley reports the results of this world championship on P.97, referring to a statement by Anderson in World Tennis magazine. However, McCauley's detailed scores in his appendix are confused about the scope of this Ampol tour, giving them in two unrelated stages, and not including the non-Australian events. A correspondent of mine has detailed coverage from Australian newspapers, culminating with the Kooyong tournament from Dec. 25, 1959 to January 2, 1960, when the championship prize money and trophy were awarded. This year long Ampol tour, which lasted from January 1959 to Jan. 2, 1960, is worthy of a separate page.

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Borg
Hi. It looks as though you might be coming close to edit warring on Bjorn Borg. Might i suggest that you take this to the appropriate place for a discussion. I notice that neither of you has edited that page since this broke out. A user's talk page isn't much help, as it often doesn't bring in the rest of the community. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for your advice a solution to the differences in the both records of both players has now been added by the other editor many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Admiralty Experiment Works
Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Navops47, thanks for creating Admiralty Experiment Works!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add incoming links. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 07:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for notifying but there was already an incoming link to the page here.--Navops47 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Admiralty Gunnery Establishment) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Admiralty Gunnery Establishment, Navops47!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Happy holidays! Baby miss fortune 08:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for reviewing and thanks for the Wiki love message.--Navops47 (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:1369 disestablishments in England has been nominated for discussion
Category:1369 disestablishments in England, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — swpb T go beyond 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability
I am intrigued as to why you find it "" to be asked to provide sources for material added to Wikipedia? You presumably have a detailed knowledge of naval organisation, but I trust that as an experienced editor you understand that verifiability is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, and that it is important that readers can see which published reliable sources support which parts of an article text. The reader can't rely on any expert knowledge of your own if it is not published. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * David my first encounter with you on my talk page Minor edits just plain rude! Second encounter with you User talk:Ajaxrocks, @Navops47:. You need to read WP:BLANKING. --David Biddulph again rude! not everyone knows every aspect of WP its a learning curve, and as it happens poor judge of character as that case turned out.  Third encounter with you today enough said! and as I realised it was you again, the word antagonistic sprang to mind. Sources have now been added so lets leave it at that.--Navops47 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As you rightly say: "not everyone knows every aspect of WP its a learning curve", so it is not rude to point out aspects which are relevant. Hopefully you will continue to learn if you don't regard every piece of helpful advice as antagonistic. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)