User talk:Tirronan/Archive 4

Hello
Well those that know me know I edit constantly and I have a deep and abiding love for military history. Feel free to discuss anything that concerns you but there is one reservation. Having run across several varieties of wiki trolls a few rules: Tirronan 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No trolling
 * I don't feed trolls
 * If you want an argument join a debating club
 * I support any change so long as you have the reputable sources (multiple) to back it up.
 * Park the urban legend version of history outside, I want the truth or as close to it as we can get.
 * Don't make additions without sourcing and footnoting the addition.

Before...
Before you jump right into the argument look at what we have been arguing over. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I would like to advise you to look back at previous edits on the American Revolutionary War dissucssion page and see the reference someone made of me and plains to the female gentials. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Every page I edit is extremely unbalanced(and favored toward a certain nationality)but I don't likeusing talk pages.If you dislike what I'm doing than change the balance of the War of 1812 and American Revolution pages! Ronald Wenonah8:48,24 April 2010

and if I catch you removing cited material again I will see about getting your edit rights removed.--Tirronan (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused you will be!
It comes down to mrg3105 considers that English language military historians are hopelessly inept and that Wikipedia should introduce more rigour into terms like "pocket" see pocket (military) and similar things for battles, operations, campaigns etc, even if this means riding roughshod over common English names.

The main article at the moment were this discussion is going on is with this RFC Talk:Prague Offensive. In that mrg3105, along with a lot of other stuff, has written "This is important because if it was called a Waterloo Defensive Tactical Battle (1815), it may contrast more readily with Battle of Leipzig which was the Leipzig Strategic Offensive Operation (1813)", hence AFAIT his interest in the Hundred Days article.

If you want to see more see also Talk:Courland Pocket, Talk:Jassy-Kishinev_Operation, Talk:Battle of Memel and Probably lots of other articles I don't know about. You will see from Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II that he and some fellow editors have lots of articles that they are concerned about and having articles named like Prague Offensive instead of Prague Strategic Offensive Operation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I have no interest in the Hundred Days...never had. I was just reflecting on the lack of systematic approach to military history in English. Certainly IF I was teaching a course on the Napoleonic military history, I would contrast the Battle of Waterloo and the Battle of Leipzig in the above fashion.
 * "riding roughshod over common English names" is a good thing when these names were created by book editors for German writer who had no access to Soviet archives! However, history moves on Philip, and now Wikipedia can present to those interested the actual names of the events. So what would you rather have, the completely-invented-with-no-basis-in-history title, or one given to the operation by its executors? How about if I publish a book called "The third battle of Alexandria"? Will you go and argue with my editor that it should be called First Battle of El Alamein?


 * Anyway, I'm not here for that. Do you have Armies of 1812 by Otto von Pivka (aka Digby Smith, also not his real name)? At the back it gives in map-form the engagements of all the French Corps on their way in and out of Russia. If you don't, I had recently dug it out, and remembered your request from ages ago for more info on other engagements in the campaign, so thought I'd offer. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination
Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Featured_article_candidates. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. -Kieran (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip
Good luck with this issue. I stopped editing in the Rev War task force area (except for my main work, Landing at Kip's Bay), because of Trip. See Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a good idea of what we've all dealt with. I could dig around and find you five or six "irritated" editors and a whole slew of arenas in which he's disrupted an otherwise great team. Until his inevitable bannation, at least from the topic, I find him too frustrating to work with. Tan  |   39  18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I rest my case Tan   |   39  20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812
So, let me see here. I'm viewed as a complete vandalistic bastard with unreliable sources, but whenever Red4Tribe puts somehing up with a website built by a 8 year old, its highly reliable? And, more onto the Point of View. So its basically okay for all that boasting about the defeats of the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom section, and about how the mighty British Empire was "battled to a standstill" by the poor fledgling nation of America, about how the British Navy was the most dominant nautical power in the world but got beat by a few schooners and frigates, but fails to mention that they were prominently un-trained. All the over-celebration of New Orleans and the hinting that the War of 1812 was an American victory through New Orleans, the Era of Good Feelings and all that crap. But when it comes to me saying that the British Army performed well, repulsed several invasions of Canada, but most of the attacks on the U.S. was repulsed, and actually writes in the whole TRUTH, that it WAS reluctance on part of the British commanders to carry out the attack, AND cites sources, its a load of bollocks? Seriously, where do people nowadays get their education? As long as its anti-British, its fine isn't it, I mean, this is an American website afterall. But once something is put up that is pro-British it is blasted out of the water, cited as unreliable, I'm blocked for "edit warring", and I'm basically a virus who keeps irritating ediots and the evil Trip Johnson has disruped an AMAZINGLY innocent team. An amazing team, that somehow contains Red4Tribe, and people who begins this godforsaken edit warring in the first place by removing my sources, people like him who make NO effort to discuss the matter whatsoever, and yet when I don't discuss it, I get blocked? Tell me Tirronan, where he HELL is the fairness in all of this? Because if you can find some, then by all means contact me. I just don't see why when someone puts something up that contradicts the bias that is already on here, I am instantly brandished as a vandalistic pillock, who does nothing but disrupts, I have an inevitabal ban heading my way (for reasons I do not know of), I have ruined everything on wikipedia, seriously Tirronan, you and this so called "Project Team" really needs to open its eyes and see what it is shovelling. Because, for heavens sake, WHY am I being victimised, when I AM NOT THE CULPRIT? If you can answer this one, go right ahead, no doubt you will answer it with somesort of condescending comment to try and make me feel as big as a blade of grass, and you will plead with the administrators for a block, because I do not agree with your opinions, or simply because I am standing up for myself. You want to block the real culprit? Ban Red4Tribe, because he is the one who plunged me into this mess, for example, by making ridiculous claims that the Battle of White Plains and Harlem Heights were American victories, he even hinted that somehow Washington won the Battle of Germantown. And I am unreliable? For heaven's sake, why don't you stop listening to the resident idiot, and start listening to my side of the story for a change? (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC))


 * As I said, I knew you would respond with one of your condescending comments. I'm not here to be the popular fairy guy, I'm here to make sure Wikipedia does not get vandalised, but when I do something to stop the vandalism, or when I source something, its all my fault and its all shit. So, go ahead, report me to the admins if it makes you feel big and hard, I mean, that is the objective of your discussion isn't it, to get me to blow my top so you can see the back of me. Well I've just handed it to you on a silver platter, so go on, go right ahead. For the record, those sources are the sources listed on Baltimore's and Plattsburgh's own wiki pages, so how the hell are they unreliable? You sir, are a hypocrite, if something doesn't go your way, or if it doesn't have the hidden message of "AMERICA RULEZ, AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA!!!!" it is obviously biased, and violates the POV to the end of its existence. So, I have learned some valuable lessons in my time on Wikipedia: 1: If it levels out the POV to a certain extent, it violates POV. Well that is double dutch to me. 2: If it's slightly pro-British and you have sourced content used somewhere else but not sanctioned till now, don't bother putting it up, it will be deleted anyway. Even though it is sourced. 3: If a battle is changed to American victory, thats fine. If its a British victory, it requires a massive discussion. 4: If you make an edit with no discussion, its vandalism. If you make an edit with a discussion, you're an argumentative little prick. So, yeah thanks, Wikipedia, for giving me such a good impression of this unreliable propaganda machine of an encyclopedia. It is scary that the younger generation are reading this and believing that it is fixed information. Look at Operation Market Garden if you want POV, that basically shifts the whole weight of the blame of the defeat to the British. And you're spitting out all this shit about POV? Open your eyes, but that's too much of a challenge. So, go ahead and report me. Ban me. To be honest, I don't give a crap, because I'm done with this bunch of hypocritical, patriotic, favourtism, biased complete idiots who claim to be graceful wikipedians. I may as well use the more reliable sources, and not try to put them on here, because hey, if they are, they are unreliable! Who'd have thought it! (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

For anyone with an interest here is the other side of the conversation:

Trip, your edits using a website of questionable value and looks once again to be trying to maximise British victories and minimise American victories. There are real books that really support some of your claims, in fact one of the beauties of the war of 1812 is that its possible to find an author to support almost anything, but it is becoming apparent that this is getting to be POV pushing. We are not here to right wrongs or fix apparent (as we see them) bais and certainly not with websites that are at best pandering to another population. Not everything British was right, nor wrong, but if you can't take a neutral stance it might be best to find another area to edit in. Trust me I don't as an American love to read about the military actions of General Hull but I wouldn't for a minute think about trying to change the results or minimise the impact of an inferior and incompetent officer's blunders, be equally kind and unkind with a ruthless razor intellect rather than this pushing that you are doing... its even getting me irritated at this point. Tirronan (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip, buddy this isn't about Red or anything else, as I pointed out do you see me changing anything where Brooke and a few Indian's got Hull to surender to a force half his size? So that you know it was the editors that made changed the decisive on New Orleans to Victory, which it was but hardly decisive. A repulse is a defeat regardless and Baltimore was all of that no matter how its framed. Carrying your heart on your sleeve and endless pov editing isn't winning you fans nor does someone pulling the America over all impress me either. I'm reverting your edits and if you do so again I will be reporting to the admins. Enough is enough, you have ruffled enough feathers around here to anger half the community and somehow its all their fault? Work to get a concensus before making these changes and please for the last time websites are not very good sources. Tirronan (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have the point that you are upset but that doesn't change the fact that you are not using good sources and this would be a interesting point but you have to bring some pretty good sourcing to back this up and a pair of websites are just not it... you have been told this before and everything else is just alligation... Either prove it or leave it alone and you are a long way from proving it. Tirronan (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trip_Johnson"

Allies
Re your comment on the Waterloo page, there was a cartoon at the end of World War II. I think it was in the NYT with the caption "We couldn't have done it without allies like Britain and Texas". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 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) 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Days
You might like to take a look at the changes to the Hundred Days article and my comments on Talk:Hundred Days --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With Revision as of 06:34, 12 January 2008 and Revision as of 05:32, 18 January 2008 you added some references to the Hundred Days article consisting of author (Hofschroer) and page numbers, but you did not include the book name(s) in the References section. Please could you do so. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you had time to look up these references? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks I have updated your edits. Now for another favour. Please see User talk:Assisting Wiki. user:Assisting Wiki has not contributed since 23 June so if you could check which book Assisting Wiki used it would allow me to include the volume number for those two citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo
Well if you think trivia is important; fine. Ceoil sláinte 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE Nikitin
He was not the commander of the reserve artillery.RM Gillespie (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hofschroer
A Danish contingent known as the 'Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps' commanded by Prince Frederick of Hessen-Kassel and a hanseatic contingent (from the free cities of Bremen, Lubeck and Hamburg) commanded by the British Colonel Sir Neil Campbell were also on their way to join this army (Plotho, Carl appendix p34 and p35) both however, joined the army in July having missed the conflict (Hofschroer, Peter p82 and 83). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume One.

Fearing that Napoleon was going to strike him first, Blucher ordered [the North German Federal Army] to march north to join the rest of his own army (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Prussian General Kleist initially commanded this army before he fell ill on June 18th and was replaced by the Hessen-Kassel General Von Engelhardt (Hofschroer, Peter p182). The Hofschroer reference here is Volume Two.

Thanks

--Assisting Wiki (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions (ships) debate
The old discussion on whether to use pennant/pendant/hull numbers instead of launch year has surfaced again at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). It would seem it would be best if as many editors as possible make their views known in some way otherwise it would seem the Wikipedia maritime history community is going to be tarred with a big brush. Not that I'm personally bothered too much by being compared to Mugabe, but I figure others might not be too keen. Regards, --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an odd question...
Judging by your comment on the talk page of War of 1812, it seems you have read up on the war quite a bit. I am in the process of deciding on what book to order on this subject. Do you have any suggestions? Red4tribe (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa
Hi you obviously have a working knowledge of User:Blablaaa there is a discussion Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blablaaa you might be interested in commenting on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Borodino
Hi, sorry I didn't answer earlier, but I got mixed up into other problems and I completely forgot about your request on my talk page. Luckily, I remembered today as I saw the Battle of Borodino on the main page. Well, I can't say I've got extensive knowledge on the subject, as I've read so far only Zamoyski's book and an article in an encyclopedia which doesn't treat the historiography at all. IMHO I think you're right regarding the "tortured history" of the battle, especially as I've also read Tolstoy's War and Peace and I've noticed him transforming this battle into a struggle between Russians and the evil represented by the French. And novels have a greater impact on humanity than precise historical works. Anyway, I've cleaned the section up a bit, that's basically the most I can do.

Meanwhile, I plan to start working on the Battle of Marengo to bring it to GA or A-class, so any advice would be appreciated. Best regards, Andynomite (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Botteville
FYI I mentioned your name here: User talk:Botteville -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy
Oh, it was a combo of things. I also had a General Election over here to work on, and University to juggle, not to mention getting a bit ill. I'm sure I will return to wiki poking as my course ramps up again this autumn. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 19:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

email accounts
I have an email address attached to my account. -- PBS (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am assuming you are using the default skin (if you don't know what I am taking about you are). Go to the user's home page look at the left hand side of the screen after "User contributions" you should see "E-mail this user". I presume you will see it even if your own email address is not set in your preferences. -- PBS (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Hb 42.50.8.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hb 42.50.8.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC Ronald Wenonah
I did not see your post until now or I would have replied sooner. It is unfortunate that Wenonah seems determined to state his POV while using references that actually do not at least completely support him.

I looked at some of his earlier posts and realized that I had forgotten that he tried to completely remove cited material that I assume he did not like. When he failed at that he tried to post his POV by using a reference that was completely unrelated to the War of 1812 (Not One Step Back by Martin Windrow). One of these references was to the Battle of Yorktown and the other to the Alamo. He then used a children's book (The War of 1812 Against The States: Heroes of a Great Canadian Victory by Jennifer Crump) as a reference that was clearly inappropriate for use on Wikipedia.

Now he has turned to a legitimate historian in George F G Stanley and it is a little more complicated. Part of what he has posted is in fact from Stanley:1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris. Everything else he stated is his, Wenonah's, POV and is not supported by Stanley. As I and others have stated the part about the treaty negotiations is not relevant to this article. What is appropriate for a book is not necessarily appropriate for an article: especially one that is probably already too long.

What to do now? Tough call because his actions are irritating and it seems likely he will continue to post his POV and cite sources that do not entirely support what he states. The fact that he says he does not care if you take him to the admins is not at all surprising to me. He is anonymous and the only possible repercussion to him is to be banned. Then he will register with a new name and resume posting. If he wants to remain anonymous he can use a proxy server and I suspect that is exactly what many do when they register sockpuppets. Wikipedia is susceptible to this type of abuse and I'm not sure much can be done about it. If you do decide to use the RFC then I do believe you are justified and I would support it. BTW, if you need to communicate quicker use my e-mail. Dwalrus (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No comment on this, just a general comment related to the edior above. When you create a talk page section, focus on the edits, not the editor.  Using the editors name as a section header is generally frowned upon.  It can be perceived as somewhat aggressive at minimum, and offensive in some cases.  I believe you weren't trying to do anything other than describe the situation, but it's always best to not call out specific editors in section headings.  Good luck getting things resolved - it's not much fun dealing with situations like this.  Just remember to stay cool, no matter what they do! Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You state at the beginning of this section that my references do not completely support me. However,later, you state that my most recent post on the War of 1812 page (go look) is completely correct and supported by a viable author: "1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris". The Treaty of Paris part was repeatedly deleted, scorned ,called "anachronous" and now described as completely correct( or at least viably supported)! By the same people( person)! I would call that anachronous. Deleting my latest post would be deleting properly cited and viable material( the exact thing you accused me of doing at the beginning of my editing career,remember).Ronald Wenonah (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My Tag on Fletcher Class
I tagged the intro on the Fletchers as too short. I did this because although the article was quite detailed and thorough, it just seemed to me, and still does, that the intro was too short. You improved it considerably and commented that I should have done this rather than tagged it. So did I do something wrong here? Busaccsb (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just looked at this again, and the article was not as detailed as I thought. Looking back on this, I would not have tagged it. So don't feel like you have to respond if you don't want to. Busaccsb (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just read your response. Thanks.  Ironically, this was the first time I have ever tagged anything.Busaccsb (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher-class drawings
These drawings look suspiciously like drawings in the Friedman book, and I don't see any attribution or mention of copyright. This is a copyright violation,isn't it?Busaccsb (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I never assumed you did the article, just contacted you because you are more experienced in the Wikiworld than I am. If they are from the book, they are not from the revised edition, although the full drawing of the ship is identical to the drawing on p. 127 of the revised edition (except for which ship is pictured), and the cutaway is very close (but mirror image, not as expertly done, and some notational differences) to the drawing on p. 116.  I hope you have access to the earlier edition.Busaccsb (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wickes and Clemson Class destroyer classes
I'll help where I can, but most of my editing these days is more geared toward WP:OMT related issues, and at the moment, specifically geared toward updating the Iowa class battleship pages so they meet FA standards. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Attack on War of 1812 article
You may be interested in reading this very severe criticism of the War of 1812 article. It is located here. BTW, although he is from Melbourne, Australia it is not our friend deathlibrarian. Dwalrus (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Delaware Class
While reading your changes, I noticed some bad wording and inaccuracy in the paragraph above, starting with the fact that the statement about 21 knots was not in the source cited, and was not even correct (the South Dakotas of 1920 were 23-knot ships). But the more I read that paragraph, the more I wonder if it really says anything useful, aside from hinting that this was a period of rapid development- and it does not do this well. What do you think?Busaccsb (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That gives me more context.  I wasn't criticizing the statement that the Delawares were 21-knot ships, just the statement that all the ships designed in 1906-1919 were 21 knot ships except for the Lexingtons, because the design speed of the South Dakotas was 23 knots (Friedman p. 446), making that earlier statement about all being not quite trueBusaccsb (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Jutland info
Rather interesting in bringing together much of what I thought happened at Jutland

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/46765/1/Nathan_Ott_Thesis.pdf

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/46765/1/Nathan_Ott_Thesis.pdf


 * Interesting, but flawed, chiefly because it relies on a limited number of secondary sources, some of which are flawed (Burr's Osprey book on British battle cruisers, Lambert's article on Jutland, and so on). --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP prods
Hello. When you prod an article, please could you fill in the edit summary field to say what you've done, as per WP:BLPPROD Nomination bullet point 2. It's helpful for editors who may be watching the article itself or keeping an eye on changes to articles in one of its categories. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

General Nansouty A-Class Review
Hi Tirronan, I've put up the article about General Nansouty for A-Class Review here. Your review would be much appreciated. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tirronan, whenever you're available is fine for me. Best of luck with your examination. Cheers,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

aticle improvements
I dont know a thing about the battle of borodino but started to look at it from a general perspective and will have another go when time permits. I expect I shall know rather more by the time i finish. Last time I looked at the 'rules' for a GA I ended up reading comments from regular reviewers complaining about the frequent rule changes which made keeping up impossible. So I am not the best person to ask about technically meeting or not these requirements. I have my own views on what is important. (like good organisation, flowing text, eliminate unnecessary words), Borodino struck me as a bit chatty contrasting one historian with another rather than telling the story. That becomes inevitable if they disagree with each other, but I'm not sure they do. Or, at one point it says something about people concerned having tried to cover up their own failings, which is perfectly sensible to mention, but if that is uncontentious then it might perhaps simply be stated with ref rather than going to the length of mentioning a historian talking about it. We dont do free advertising. I honestly dont know for sure what the table 'estimates by historians' is a table of. Things need captions to make clear what they are (yes, I know, its dead easy to become familiar with something so that you understand it perfectly, but someone new may not. I am trying to be critical here!).
 * I seriously have no plans to become an expert on borodino. Every history article I look at has some sort of coverup. Maybe that is just a definition of 'hi-story'. I already got sidetracked onto RMS Lusitania, which is also a dogs breakfast of coverups. If I compare the two, I would say there is a common theme of the admiralty covering up things which could not be said and perhaps this should not be a surprise given the circumstances. Sandpiper (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you just took that table out, but now I know what it is, I think it should be in the article, not on its own somewhere. I think it might be put back in the historiography section, where it discusses conflicting accounts. At that point it would not upset the flow too much. I shall stick it back in there for now as I copyedit through. Sandpiper (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the stuff posted on my page re jutland. Im not quite sure what the block you quoted is, or comes from? I had a look at the talk page but couldnt identify any link which explains more. I have a copy of one book by tarrant somewhere but dont know if this is what is referred to. I have none by Lambert, and our article only mentions a journal article, which I havnt seen, There are two different Lamberts writing historical books, perhaps related? One wrote a phd on pre wwi submarines about 1992. Unfortunately before theses became available online.

You quote "The British Navy, however, failed to adequately absorb the lessons from the destruction of the three battlecruisers". I am not sure I would accept this without further explanation. It is quite different to say they organised a coverup of failings to saying they did not act to correct those failings. It might well be the best course to publicly or even confidentially cover up all traces you have discovered of an awful blunder, but at the same time take action to make sure it does not happen again. Admitting to such a failing would have been disastrous publicity. Confidence in the navy was badly shaken by the bare facts of the losses, never mind conceding they were due to incompetence. Sandpiper (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * maybe jellicoe was. (not meant to imply I know anything) Coverups in wartime can be essential. The question remains who created the mess which had to be covered up. (am trying to copyedit borodino so will get back to jutland later)Sandpiper (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Borodino
Great news! Congratulations for all your hard and brilliant work on a subject that is extremely hard to cover objectively. You have managed to do that with elegance and skill. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Shannon
Do you have a ref for that addition?Tirronan (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't really think it needed one since the addition links to an already well-sourced article about Sir John Sherbrooke (Halifax). However, since you asked, reference added.Letterofmarque (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Berezina
Hi Tironnan, I hope that you have a bit of spare time to have a look at this article. I am actually writing to request your arbitration on a topic that is becoming a somewhat prolonged and irritating edit conflict at this article. You will see that there's been a fair amount of reverting and an attempt to find some sort of common ground, which has so far failed. In a nutshell: an editor is claiming that Berezina has been a Russian tactical victory and that the French retreated as a result of the battle and that therefore this battle had mixed results. The editor is also insisting on adding a XIXth century Russian source, which claims that the Russians only lost something like 6,000 men. I'll let you see for yourself and get your own opinion about this. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User: Hubertgrove
Tirronan, over the last month, you have been harassing and attacking me due to a properly sourced and verified edit that I have made to the Battle of the Falkland Islands article to which you object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands).

When I logged on today, I found that you had edited my Talk page with a new threat to have me banned and to vandalise my edit. Let me put this simply: I request that you do not post on my Talk page again, and that you do as you have threatened to do and try to ban me. Please do so so that more senior editors will be able to review your behaviours. Thank you. Hubertgrove (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Opposition to an edit is not harassing or attacking you, further it has been you that has engaged in personal attacks over and over. It is there for anyone to see.  I find your behavior irrational, you attack other users over and over then claim it has been you that has been attacked?  Be aware that I shall post if you continue your behavior towards me or other editors, frankly you need to grow up.Tirronan (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You insulted me and harrassed me for more than a month. Now you threaten to vandalise a properly verified and sourced edit. So, go ahead, report me. Any wikipedia editor seeing what you have written and how you have behaved will come to the right condlusion. Hubertgrove (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas, Hubertgrove, this just may not be the forum for you to be happy at. If you had bothered to check you would have known that both Simon and I are in fact Senior Editors by your account.  I've hundreds of articles and tens of thousands of edits under my belt.  Looking back over the talk page the only one that I have seen throwing insults around was you.  Your theory, doesn't hold water that isn't personal, in fact I wish that it were true but it just isn't.  Had it been there would have been OFFICIAL documents and why would a service that was happy to report every single intel coup remain silent on this?  While I may have not had much respect for your theory, that is a long way from saying that I don't have respect for you.  Not once have you apologized to me for the accusations of sock puppetry, illiteracy, or accusations of my bad intent, you have continued with abhorrent behavior trying to bully me off reverting what should never have been written.  It won't work and I will not stop doing my duty to the project and to keeping history articles accurate.Tirronan (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

On Friday, you agreed to one of my edits and called it "Perfect". Today, when I logged in, you had subjected it - the very copy that you approved word for word - to another spoiler edit. This is stupid and spiteful behviour. Cut it out. Hubertgrove (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * in point of fact it is not my edit.Tirronan (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you have even less reason to revert it. Now stop your vandalism Hubertgrove (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Find something better to do please.Tirronan (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Stopping an article being vandalised is useful. I request that you revert the edit to the copy you specifically approved on Friday. If you are unable to do so, I will open a dispute resolution ticket tomorrow which means other editors will see your actions and review your posts. That will not be good for you. Hubertgrove (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Hubertgrove (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs)

Good luck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hubertgrove_reported_by_User:Tirronan_.28Result:_.29 Hubertgrove (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: I guess we are both having a rough day
Well, the article has been protected, but the user has now added even more errors to the files in question. Stubbornness and ignorance is a deadly combination. I had hoped an admin would help, but now the article is frozen to a severely incorrect state. Adelbrecht (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

American lion
Glad you noticed--I was tempted to just revert that whole section from Zoobah; it's all unsourced and has serious style issues, but I didn't want to jump in and do it without a little backup. siv0r (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Judaism and violence
Please read my comment on Talk:Judaism and violence. It references the contentious discussion over Christianity and violence and provides the insight that I took away from that discussion. I concluded that the problem was that any attempt to discuss only the examples of violence was going to cause some people to feel that there was a POV imbalance prejudging the question of whether Christianity is a violent religion. (I obviously didn't share this perspective but I came to see that other people such as you, Noleander and Tryptofish might feel this way so I figured it was more productive to accomodate your POV rather than continuing the dispute.) You may not have reached the same conclusion that I did but I figured I'd share my view with you and perhaps open a dialogue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi. I noticed that you used rollback to revert an edit from. Please remember that rollback is only for use in clear cases of blatant vandalism. Will74205 was making good faith edits to the article and was explaining themselves in the edit summary. A better way forward might have been to talk to user Will74205. It's starting to look a little like an edit war and that's another thing rollback is forbidden for. Thanks! :)  fr33k man   04:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Shannon & Chesapeake
I'll let this pass, since I don't have the time or inclination for Wikipedia fights, as I have an actual life to live.

Roosevelt may have been a good president, but he wasn't much of an historian, and his historical writings are notably partisan. I think you'll find that William James is well regarded among present day professional historians, both in the USA and UK.

However, as far as I'm concerned you are very welcome to believe whatever makes you feel good about your country and yourself.

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill

Green Wyvern (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)