User talk:Wiki-Ed

Hi Wiki-Ed, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:


 * Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
 * The help centre and FAQs
 * The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~. Some people do not pay attention to unsigned comments. An important note: Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

But above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

-- TPK 13:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted
Hi Wiki-Ed.

Hope you received my e-mail that I have unblocked the IP. The problem was User:Kapa, who was impersonating the legitimate User:Kappa. The moment I spotted that name on the recent changes page I blocked it, accounts with impersonating usernames are blocked immediately. When the impersonating Kapa then tried editing, the IP address he was working from was also blocked, "autoblocked" that is (full explanation at Block). Sadly, you were using the same IP as Kapa was, and therefore you wound up being blocked as well. Sorry about that, it was not about you.

Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Public school
Hi. Heads-up re vote on name change at public school. A couple of us have switched our vote to back the new consensus: a merge with Independent school. I wondered if you would consider reviewing that Talk page and maybe switching support too, so that we can wrap this debate up and move on to improving new article?--Mais oui! 06:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to understand
Hi, wiki-ed, i'd like to know why you removed my changes about the WWII page (concerning France in 1940 and Vichy indochina). I don't understand. I've started a discussion on the "talk" page of WWII, if you want to reply, you're welcome.

Waggg 12:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Battlecruiser article spelling
The Manual of Style says spelling used in first non-stub version is what matters, unless the article focuses "on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country." Battlecruisers are not specific to the UK. The spelling never should have been changed away from American spelling. --Cultural Freedom talk 17:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

English-related articles: Assume good faith
You've accused me several times now of being "disruptive" of WP:POINT violations. That's a rather uncharitable interpretation. In fact, I'm trying to help. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 08:53 (UTC)


 * I think that's just part of trying to build up Wikipedia, please don't take it personally. What you perceive to be helpful I may perceive to be disruptive. In the case of English-related articles you've made edits to a number of pages I just happen to have on my watch-list. Naturally when I see all of them being revised to reflect an (apparently) American POV I've want to change them back to what I believe to be the status quo. I'll see the changes - and the justification - as an attempt to prove a point, whereas in fact you believe it's simply correcting the article to what you've been taught is right. And then we have to all go away and find and quote the sources etc etc, which is tiresome when it's a fairly basic tenet. Anyway, I'd advise treading carefully if you see an article with lots of edits and a long talk page. It's worth discussing proposals on the talk page before making changes. Having a consensus usually helps when you want to alter the emphasis of text which has been edited and re-edited multiple times to achieve a balance. Wiki-Ed 10:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the civil response. I agree, in fact, with almost all of the above -- and it would be all of the above, period, if you had written "when I take it to be a fairly basic tenet" instead of "when it is a fairly basic tenet." In any event, I will reflect on the balance I keep between "being bold" and showing respect for past debates on a page, even when I think the conclusions of the debates reflect an absurdly Euro-centric view.
 * (I'll respond on the Enlish language talk page later, need to get some (other) work done right now. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 10:36 (UTC)

Euro-centric? Heh heh, all I can say is my perspective is very different to yours :). As for basic tenets... well even simple things can cause heated arguments eg. Talk:Apple_pie/Archive. The basic tenet there is that it's a dessert dish which is partcularly popular in America, but if people dispute its origins or evolution everyone has to go away and find sources, even though no-one seriously disagrees over the basics. Wiki-Ed 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One person's "basic tenet" is most certainly not another's! And, by the way, that's "different from" in proper English. :) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-28 16:06 (UTC)

British Empire
That IIIV chap is being ridiculous about the B.E. being the world's most extensive empire as "POV". I just don't understand some people! Gsd2000 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you've thrown the book at him (so to speak) it will be interesting to see whether he falls into the 'opinionated-and wrong-but-sensible" category or the 'smart-vandal-with-an-agenda' category. Nice detective work on the sockpuppets by the way. I must learn how to do that properly. Wiki-Ed 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wiki-Ed. Once again the B.E. article is being spoiled by someone... I saw you'd reverted it, he put it back, I reverted again, he put it back, and I reverted again... oh dear, revert war here we come... anyway, just alerting you to this fact.  I added a section on the talk page about it, but he didn't engage and simply reverted. Gsd2000 17:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn... Gsd2000 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

English people
Thanks for the good advice, some things just get me so angry. Recently there have been quite a lot of North Americans on the English and Welsh people pages who seem to think they know us British people and our cultures better than we know ourselves. Mostly they seem to think that we all speak different languages and live completelly isolated lives from each other and somehow all dislike or even hate each other. I really don't like being told what I am or am not (or that I am somehow not properly Welsh just because I actually like English people) by people that have never lived in the place they think they know so much about. Anyway thanks for the advice, you are quite right, it's not worth it. Alun 06:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Paratroopers Crete '41.JPG
Hello, Wiki-Ed. I am wondering if you can clear up some questions I have about Image:Paratroopers Crete '41.JPG.

For the source of the photo, you write, "From collection of Wiki-Ed's great uncle, probably traded". What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that your great uncle took the photo, or that someone else did and your great uncle traded for it? You have also tagged the image with, which says, "I, the creator of this work…", but apparently you are not actually the creator?

Also, in the summary section you say that the image is released under the GFDL, but in the licensing section you state that you have released the image into the public domain. Which of these is the case? —Bkell (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting photo that one. My great uncle was in the Royal Navy and his ship went all over the place during the war. He took many pictures and because of the medals he had we (my family) know it is quite possible that he was in each of the locations - including being on land - at the time that the event portrayed actually occurred. However, we also know that servicemen traded photos around and it is equally possible that he traded a copy of one of his better photos for this dramatic image of paratroopers landing in Crete (I should point out that to my eye it looks like it has been touched up slightly). However, since he passed away 20 years ago I cannot ask him and can only assume it is genuine and that he took it. It was in his collection, was labelled in his handwriting and I now have the print.


 * As for the licensing, I've digistised the original, cropped it and tinkered with the contrast/resolution. I didn't take the original so I haven't "created" it as such (and I've made that clear) but as far as I can see there is no applicable licensing template for a situation where the current owner digistises and edits an image taken by someone in his family who has passed away and bequeathed possessions to a relative. Grateful if you could suggest the correct tag if it is incorrect. Wiki-Ed 20:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see. I guess the question still remains: do you want to release it under the GFDL, which allows anyone to use or modify it for any purpose as long as they release their derivative works under the GFDL, or do you want to release it into the public domain, which places absolutely no restrictions on what anyone can do with the photo? —Bkell (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the circumstances I think GFDL is more appropriate. I've changed it accordingly. Wiki-Ed 22:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming that you don't mind, I'm going to copy this discussion to the image's talk page. —Bkell (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MGB-81
Hello, pehaps this have to do with this, but i don't know. Otherwise some links on internet : CaptainHaddock 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * MGB 81 (524)
 * MGB-81 - 71½ FT MOTOR GUN BOAT
 * Motor Gun boat MGB 81 Picture

Not so quiet on the Western Front...
Oh dear.... Gsd2000 21:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop ganging up on people you two…you are already on the Defense…I’m going to state this again…

“Stop trying twist the Authors words. This is from a Widely used University Textbook, with sourced research. Wiki-Ed and Gsd2000, you guys are working together and supporting each other (shown in you talk history, which for some reason you deleted…), and gather other support I have seen to bully people and you also broke the 3RR rule, something I should have made the Admins aware of, but I'm new and didn't know anything about that, before. Unless you guys can show Prove with Sources discrediting my info, it will stay in because this article has a one-sided view, and a systematic bias, especially shown by both of you two getting together and commiserating.”

Cosmos416 16:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Rule Britannia
I am surprised that you deleted my comments on Rule Britannia as leitmotif as unsourced and/or inaccurate. The entire article is unsourced so it seems unfair to single my observations out. As a consumer of American popular culture for my entire life, I have observed the usage of Rule Britannia as a leitmotif so many times as to consider it a trivial and obvious observation.

Perhaps I should tag the entire article as unsourced. Charles T. Betz 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Churchill on HMS Kelvin June 1944.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Churchill on HMS Kelvin June 1944.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:HMS Kelvin.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:HMS Kelvin.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

British Empire POV
As per your crib, I have added a citation backing up the claim that India attained freedom and not just independence from England. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More on British Empire
How can you say that opening para is complete without ANY criticism ? And also isnt "granting" independence a British POV. Also I would like to see academic consensus that India was "granted" independence. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-departmental public body
I think your undo of my edit is in error, from reading the sources: The term 'public body' is a general one which includes: Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs); Public Corporations; NHS Bodies; and Public Broadcasting Authorities (BBC and S4C). There are four types of NDPB. These denote different funding arrangements, functions and kinds of activity. They are: (from the foreword to the directory of public bodies on the Civil Service website).

I think it is clear from this that while Public Corporations and NHS Bodies are kinds of "public body", NDPBs are also kinds of "public body" and the enumeration seems to me to make it clear that not all public bodies are non-departmental. The reason I deleted the sentence was because the Civil Service pages include the extra categories in the term "public body" (as used later in the page) and this is the NDPB page not a page headed "public body". The intention was to avoid confusion. JohnGray (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with John Gray.Cutler (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aircraft carriers in fiction
I have nominated Aircraft carriers in fiction, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Aircraft carriers in fiction. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

British Empire
It's funny how little changes provoke a mass of banter and argument on the talk pages, and then when there is mundane work to be done, everyone scarpers and there is silence! I'm not including you in that, by the way. Anyway, I know you're opposed to over-referencing, but one ref per para is reasonable, don't you think? It would be great we got this article to GA level, and then we can look at taking it to FA level. What say ye, sir?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. By the way, have you used Google Books much?  .  Most of the books in the references section can not only be viewed but searched using that tool.  Sometimes books haven't been scanned by google but you can still "search inside" at Amazon.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Battlecruiser
Hi, you didn't actually "revert" my edit but spotted an error that had been there for some time. Well done on that but please be more careful in "reverting" edits by long-time users. Mine had got rid of an unnecessary external link which I've had to do again. bigpad (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might like these...
I found them on Google books (they have scanned most of the pages) but decided to buy them. New copies are ridiculously overpriced ($275??) but I picked up second hand ones (that are as good as new) from the US Amazon for 6 quid a piece. They're great for dipping into and reading about a topic in its entirety. And they make particularly good "water closet reading material" - each entry is the perfect reading length :-)  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Restraining myself...
...but the English could be improved a bit. "In Ireland this had led to violence" - what led to violence, exactly? Three consecutive paragraphs begin with "too", or "also" statements. "Further afield" doesn't add any value. And you seem to be suggesting that the Great Depression had one cause. Normally I would go in and tidy up, but I'm conscious that this has put you off in the past, so I don't want to do this again, after your helpful additions to the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this section is pretty large now compared to the rest of the article, given that it's only two decades' worth :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A more specific Pacific..
✅. Feel free to make sure it is up, or rather down, to your standards.  Taifarious1 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wordiness
FYI - WP:TRITE, a guide, not a policy, but nevertheless - "Reduce sentences to the essentials. Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles". These conjunctive sentences that you favour, such as "The incorporation of new territory was accompanied by a bid for independence in the oldest territory." add no value for the reader. "The incorporation of new territory" was already fully discussed, and "a bid for independence in the oldest territory" is about to be fully discussed. So why add that sentence at all? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Puns
I think you need to do a little more research on what a pun is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sensei
I did chuckle about your comment regarding the inappropriate username: I've been thinking exactly that for a while now seeing the maps that are being uploaded. It's a pity that C. R. Boxer passed away not knowing the full extent of the Portuguese Empire... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd love to hear the reasons for some of the swirly bits and random straight lines reaching into (what should be) terra incognita on that map. On second thoughts, no I wouldn't. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

war of jenkins ear
ussi possidetis? what is that? a word created this year by some british author? GTFO Maybe in your dreams the war could be indecisive / "ussi possidetis". I've checked out your fake sources and are not RELIABLE .. where is the mention to the Battle of Cartagena de Indias and the heavy british casualties suffered?, get your facts straight. The result of the war is Spanish victory, the objective of the british was end with the spanish empire in the americas, and the british heavy massive attack failed. GET OVER IT Cosialscastells (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * why i can't find nothing about blas de lezo too? Are you trying to avoid the truth? if yes let me know =)

you are engagin in original research, the british rennounced to the asiento by the Treaty of Madrid, the war of jenkins ear followed the austrian succession, but the result was in the treaty of madrid, not in the treaty of aix-la-chapelle. Cosialscastells (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Take your rants to the article talk page so everyone can laugh at you. Oh, and read the sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In your absence, Wiki-Ed, User:Cosialscastells has been indefinitely blocked for the abuse that he has posted here (and which I removed).  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
I notice you are engaging in a revert war on English language. As an established editor you are probably aware of the WP:3RR policy. But I just want to be sure. —teb728 t c 04:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of History of the aircraft carrier
A tag has been placed on History of the aircraft carrier, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The article is a copy of the article Aircraft Carrier

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mifter (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

BE
Have you seen this, Wiki-Ed? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox results guideline
Hi, considering that you took part in this discussion few days ago, please express your opinion in the straw poll recently initiated. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WJE - Spanish Victory
It's amazing how persistent some individuals can be, isn't it... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Paratroopers Crete '41.JPG
File:Paratroopers Crete '41.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Paratroopers Crete &. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

BI
You have my support if you revert! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles/Overseas
Touche, Wiki-Ed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It made me laugh writing it. What goes around comes around. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Check this out:   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My god this is tedious. I suspect the ringleader is now simply engaged in an exercise to not lose face. I find it remarkable how he began by saying he was trying to diffuse a situation (where "diffusing" means "fixing to his liking", of course) and yet is still doggedly refusing to back down. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yikes . Behaviour at BE is far, far, far, from what one would expect from an administrator.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually he is just very very busy and this is not the most urgent of issues. It needs to be done properly to take some of the heat out of things.  --Snowded  TALK 12:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-stalking one-another? :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, any page where I leave a comment is on watch (see the header on my talk page) and the comment seemed worthy of note.  --Snowded  TALK 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannia
In all seriousness, I suggest you check those references. I can see no trace of a claim in any of them that the term Britannia was used to describe the islands collectively. They all suggest that the word Britannia derived from an earlier word like Pretani (or similar), which itself (may have) described the islands collectively - but that is not at all the same thing. It is often the case that words change their meaning over time, and it would be quite wrong to infer from the evidence that Britannia as used by the Romans was applied to more than one island. ("Insulae Britannicae" is a different matter - but, again, although the term can be translated, for convenience and common understanding, as "British Isles", it could equally well be translated as "Britannic islands", etc. - they are not the same words.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI regarding these edits, I can see page 292 of Markale's book on Google Books. I have no issue if you think Markale's book isn't a good scholarly work, but simply removing links because they are no longer available (to some) on Google Books is unnecessary. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edits on British Isles in the Etymology section are exactly what I'd like to see in Britannia.... Could we agree on that?  --HighKing (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will survive long on that page, but if that forms the basis of a way forward for the other article then great. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Why does it seem like we were agreeing all along now....  --HighKing (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BI...
I give it one hour. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BI again
Please self-revert. The Foster ref. p.1, says "Pytheas... refers to the British Isles as the 'Pretanic islands'". The Allen ref, p.174, makes no ref to the naming of the islands at all, and says that "Diodorus employed the name Pretannia.. to describe the country..." (without explaining what is meant by "the country"). Neither of the refs support the assertion in the current text that "The British Isles first appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia." The Allen ref seems totally irrelevant. I don't deny that Massalian travellers referred to islands, and those references may (according to Foster) be to what is sometimes now called the "BI" - but that is precisely what my amendment would show. It is wrong to state "the BI" first appeared in those writings - obviously, it was not the islands themselves that appeared, it was a reference to them, and the term "BI", in the English language, came much, much later. The current text, frankly, is nonsensical and not supported by the refs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about your great-uncle's images
Hello, Wiki-Ed.

There are a couple of images that you have uploaded, which you have attributed to your great-uncle. I'm interested in File:Bartolomeo Colleoni under attack.JPG and File:Bartolomeo Colleoni destroyed.JPG for an expansion/rewrite I'm working on. Do you know which ship your great-uncle was on when he took these photographs? -- saberwyn 07:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I was hoping you could identify which ship belonged to the gun barrels in the edge of "under attack.jpg", but oh well. -- saberwyn 10:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mummy!
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI
nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Our new colleagues
I'm starting to think its time for a request for comment on these users. What do you think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Since no one has yet pointed it out to you, I thought I should mention that there is currently a discussion at Talk:British Empire about an image you recently removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Image Paratroopers Crete 41 JPG
Wiki-Ed

I was putting togetger some info on my Father-in-law's time in Crete during WW2. I had scanned his old photos on to DVD. and then went on line to Wikipedia to look up the History of the invasion of Crete when I notice your photo above. This photo is also in my Father-in-Law's collection. My Father-in-Law William Hendy served in the Australian Army from 1939 to 1945. Unfortunately he passed away 30 years ago and we know little about who took the photo, except we know he did have photos that were taken found from dead Germans at Crete and later in El Alamein in 1942.

Can you shed any futher info other that what you have Wikipedia.

Dave Mc Downunder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.70.204 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This image gets quite a lot of attention. My great uncle was serving in the RN in the Med. He had an extensive collection of photographs from this time period, some of which I scanned in and uploaded to apppropriate Wikipedia articles under a GNU license. While some of the images are clearly his own (he's in them ), others are almost certainly not. Most of them appear to be amateur but some show signs of alteration, suggesting they may have been published. This image falls into the latter category. Given what you say about having found the same photo in your own collection I suspect it was copied/traded widely between service men. There were no annotations on the reverse side (as with some of his other photos), so I cannot tell you anything more about it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary Eve online
"System security ranges from +1 to -1, but the in-game map does not show true sec status below 0.0. Check Dotlan or another mapping site if in doubt" Not sure about the ingame map, but know for sure that a systems true sec now shows up in the top left corner of the screen (next to system info) (I know this seems random but I hope it will clear out any possible future confusions on the topic :) ) Ugottoknowme2 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Hi. I realize it's done in good faith, but I think it's probably not a good idea to substantially change your message under a much earlier timestamp as here without clearly showing what you've changed, especially considering the responses immediately under it to the earlier version. Station1 (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think you're right. Too tired last night to think about a different way of presenting it (and certainly wasn't expecting it to generate such animated discussions). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

War of Jenkins' Ear
why did you undid my rivision??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupo supo (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service AFD: Query on sourcing
Moving this to your talk since it is rather off topic for the AFD itself, and I'd like to avoid clutter. You commented that At Her Majesty's Secret Service: The Chiefs of Britain's Intelligence Agency, M16 is fiction, and I was wondering what your source for that claim is. The author, "Nigel West", has indeed written fiction (Murder in the Commons, Murder in the Lords, etc.), but this book, like most of his works, is not among those. In fact, "Nigel West" is a pen name for former Member of Parliament Rupert Allason. And, as our article on him suggests, his nonfiction military history books about the British intelligence community are well regarded. Quoting the Sunday Times, "His information is so precise that many people believe he is the unofficial historian of the secret services. West's sources are undoubtedly excellent." Do you hold a different view of Allason's work? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, Google books, unlike the official "The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949" which it classes as political science . Since the SIS (NB not "Secret Service") have only opened their archives to the author of the latter one might think that the author of the former could not be considered in the same league. I haven't read it so I won't offer any further comment on its accuracy, but writing a fully sourced article on a topic that a government goes to great lengths to keep secret is not an easy task. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Nigel West book refers to the agency as the "Secret Intelligence Service" throughout; the title is merely a play on On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the James Bond novel and film. All of West (actually Allason)'s books on the British intelligence community (especially this one) were not without some measure of public and government consternation; he used information made available to him as a Member of Parliament to enable his research.  The CIA certainly doesn't consider it fiction; a review of the book appears in a 2007 issue of Studies in Intelligence.  And other booksellers and aggregators do not typically consider it a work of fiction (see Amazon UK's placement of it as Books > Biography > War & Espionage, as one example). Regardless, I do not intend to depend solely on Allason's work by any means.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Normal Members of Parliament have no special privileges - if anything it should be an impediment as a serving officer would be doubly wary about talking to them, but anyway I don't wish to get into a debate. It just made me smile that Google had branded it fiction (probably accidentally) because it happens to coincide with my view of a lot of these books about secret services. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Images you moved in Battlecruiser
Hi, Ed. Don't know whether you're aware but in graphic layouts, ships should be sailing into the page, not out of it, to take the reader's eyes toward the text and not away from it. What was it about where these three images were places before you moved them that you considered "messy?" I'd rather discuss things here first than simply more them back and potentially start an edit war. Thanks and looking forward to your reply. Jonyungk (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think the changes you've been making to this article recently are all very good. However, in the last edit you anchored the images at the bottom of the previous sub-section. On my web browser (and presumably others) this caused the 'Naval Rearmament' sub-title to float in towards the middle of the page and the images were out of alignment with the paragraphs they corresponded to; hence the comment about it being untidy. I haven't seen anything in the MoS about ships sailing onto pages, but I do recall something about images being spread evenly right/left and the previous set of images are on the left so I figured there were some pretty good reasons for moving the ship plans over to the right. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sailing onto page isn't a Wiki MoS; it's actually one of the basic do's and don'ts of graphic design, which I learned during my years in professional publishing. My point in starting the images (which, BTW, I was treating as one image block, almost like a Wiki gallery, rather than as individual images) at the bottom of the previous sub-section was to make sure the heading for "Naval Rearmament" stayed with the copy that followed rather than orphaned with the pictures and away from the text. I've noticed it done in several articles in the past so figured it could be done here, too. I will disagree with you, though, about the images being out of sequence; they actually appear, from top to bottom, in the same order as the corresponding ships are mentioned in the article&mdash;the German "pocket battleships" first, the Scharnhorst second and the Dunkerque last. I'd really like to move this image group back to where it was before. Your thoughts, give the above? Jonyungk (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * While the presentational point sounds sensible in theory, in practice it is not a principle that is followed by the authors of the books referred to in the Battlecruiser article. A quick scan of Massie, Gardner et al shows no consistency in ship orientation. As such I don't think we should be bound by it, particularly since the images are plans rather than artwork so the ships aren't visually sailing anywhere. This is all rather beside the point though: the effect of placing the images above the level 2 heading does not orphan the title (I agree that this should be avoided where it is a problem), but it does push it out towards the middle of the page. In terms of the sequence: I agree that it does follow the order of the paragraphs, but the images are horizontally aligned to those paragraphs better if they are positioned on the right rather than the left. In fact I would be inclined to place them all at the end of the first paragraph where the alignment would be near-perfect. Finally, as I mentioned previously, on a page with lots of images editors should stagger them left/right instead of placing them on one side. These points are covered by MOS:IMAGES and in more detail at Manual_of_Style/Images, specifically in the section concerning location: "Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph". Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Nausicaa7.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nausicaa7.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As a reply to your message on my talk page: First thank you for your message. And yes I know it is an old upload. I checked and found out that you are still active so I asumed you would notice. I'm not an expert in fair use - I mostly work on free files. But I will ofcourse try to answer your questions.
 * I think the file/photo is unfree because the figures of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga) are copyrighted (see license on File:Nausicaa2cover.jpg as an example). When you take a photo of a comic you create a derivative work and both your photo and the original comic has to be under a free license for the photo to be free.
 * You are right that it is is a few cards lying on the floor. Perhaps you are thinking that the copyrighted parts would be de minimis but I doubt that. The photo would be of no use if we crop out the cards. Therefore the cards are the main motive. See Commons:Commons:De minimis for an example on what is de minimis.
 * I would expect Non-free card + some non-free rationale to be a good choice if you think that a photo of the cards are important to illustrate the article Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga). I'm not sure that it is but if you think it would be I see no reason not to give it a try. --MGA73 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify - they're not playing cards, they're comic books. However, I think you're right and I'm not inclined to try and fabricate a reason to preserve the image. While it does provide an illustration of the subject of the article, it does not significantly improve the reader's understanding of the topic and it may detract from the rationale used to justify the inclusion of the cover in the information box. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm... Probably time for me to go to bed then ;-) If they are books then Non-free book cover would be better :-) But you figured that out allready so... --MGA73 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The English Translation of Nausicaä
This message is in regards to what appears to be a fiercely defended policy about when to use British English and when to use American English, particularly the idea that "for a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English."

I have no personal interest in perpetuating American English spelling. However, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind was translated from the original Japanese into American English by a publisher based in the United States. In fact, the only English edition of Nausicaä currently in print is the American English edition. Therefore, this particular article should use American English spelling. C'est logique!

Maybe a member with a user name and talk page full of Barnstars made these edits a while back and has since claimed some sort of ownership over the entire entry. Maybe not. But the article was not originally written using British English spelling: it was split way back in 2006, from the original article created in 2002, which used American English. Somewhere along the line, British English spelling prevailed, but in accordance with the policy quoted above, it should be reverted to American English. This rationale is flawless. Reverting all the edits back to British English is irrational and stubborn. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the history because I wrote most of the content of the article (although it has been modified quite a bit since them). Ownership is not the issue; this article was originally written in (British) English. I appreciate the subject matter is a manga that was translated by an American publisher, but I don't think this constitutes a strong link to the US in the same way as, say, Pearl 'Harbor' (vs Sydney 'Harbour'). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The history of the article is right there for all to see, so there's no need to argue about its origins. Just in case my rationale was unclear before I will reiterate: the text of this manga was translated from Japanese to American English by Dana Lewis and Toren Smith (founder of Studio Proteus), both of whom are American. It was then published by Viz Media, who are headquartered in the U.S. No British English edition of this title exists. That constitutes a sufficiently strong link. And just in case this rationale sounds like some sort of bias, it should be said that the obverse would also be true: if the only English translation of a text had been done in the U.K., it would stand to reason that the Wikipedia entry should be written in British English. (In fact, there are a few bandes dessinées in which this is the case.) Moving on...I think it would be nice to add a bit of detail about the translation to the article. Yes? 75.27.41.134 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understood your rationale before and I guess I was wiki-lawyering because (as you said) I'm stubborn and get a bit irritable if someone changes the spelling of something I wrote in BrE. However, your argument it solid; I won't revert again. On your last comment - if you know more about the translation - and from what you've said above it seems that you do - then please go ahead and add it in. I'm sure the additional detail would be welcome. Also, can I suggest that you make yourself an account? People around here tend to distrust IP addresses on sight, which would be unfortunate because your contributions all seem very sensible. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Nausicaä is my favorite manga—and one of my favorite comics of all time, from any culture—and I have been wanting to contribute to the improvement of this entry for a while now. Sorry if my previous comments were a bit schoolmarmish in tone. As for your suggestion, I suppose I should create an account someday, as I do share this IP address. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Battleship

 * "The launch of the Dreadnought commenced a new naval arms race, which was widely considered to have been an indirect cause of World War I."

Ok, that makes much more sense. Thanks for the citation, I appreciate your adding it. Have to make sure those claims are referenced after all, what with the article being FA-class :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was an odd one. I knew what it meant, but I realised when I couldn't find a source as easily as I thought I should be able to that it was the wording which left it open to criticism. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Versailles
Hey Ed. I removed your addition to the article about gun caliber restrictions; Article 181 is solely about the ships Germany was permitted to retain. Article 190 covers new builds, and only makes note of the displacement limitation. Apart from the terms of the treaty itself, there are numerous sources that support the lack of gun-caliber restrictions (for instance, Preston and Bidlingmaier, both cited in the Deutschland class article). The claim that there was any kind of restriction, either explicit or implied, appears to be a long-propagated myth. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've undone that. First, the source I cited is quite explicit about this. Second, one of the sources you refer to - Preston - does indeed state that the Treaty did not stipulate a calibre limitation. However, he goes on to say that the Germans stuck with 28cm because anything larger would provoke the Allies. Why would they think this? The obvious explanation is that 28cm was the calibre of the main armament of the Deutschland (1904) ships listed in Article 181 and while I agree that it did not explicitly state that the armament of those ships should be used as a measure, the Germans certainly seem to have interpreted it that way. This reflected in the sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why did some of the design studies for the Deutschlands incorporate guns larger than 28cm? There is a difference between what the Germans thought would provoke the Allies, and stating outright that the treaty prevented them from using guns larger than 28cm. The latter is a blatant falsehood. We shouldn't be in the business of muddying the waters because other authors aren't competent enough to get their facts straight. Also, avoiding a provocation of the Allies wasn't the only reason for choosing the 28cm gun - it also eased the work on an already over-worked design staff. Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, this is the same problem with a misunderstanding of WP:V. Including material even though we know it to be incorrect simply because it's been repeated in far too many works is not the right way to handle this. If you want to include a mention of the fact that the Germans adopted the 28cm gun in part to reduce tensions over the design, be my guest. I don't know that that small detail is relevant to the article as a whole, though, and perhaps a link to the development section of the class article would be a better option. Parsecboy (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Something else to consider: if there were an actual limitation imposed by Versailles, why was the decision to arm the Scharnhorsts with 28cm guns even a topic for discussion? They were designed before Hitler repudiated Versailles and were laid down before the Anglo-German naval agreement, which permitted 35,000t ships with up to 16" guns, was signed. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no misunderstanding of WP:V - your "truth" is at odds with what published sources say. It's not just one source, it's lots of them. They are entitled to interpret primary source material and tell us what they think it means (and what the Germans thought it meant in the 20s); We are not. I don't propose to get into an edit war so I'll await your response, but the burden of evidence here is with you, and bear in mind that some of the references I could add to support the point are used widely in various articles - if you're planning to debunk all those sources we might end up with a fairly sparsely referenced encyclopedia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read at all what I said? Read the treaty. If you can find an explicit limitation of the gun caliber of German warships, I'll eat my hat. There are also a number of published sources that refute the claim that there was any sort of limitation, explicit or otherwise. Here's the thing: their interpretations are just that, interpretations. They are not fact. As I said above, what the Germans thought would be politically expedient in the 1920s is not the same thing as having had explicit limitations imposed on them. If you want to say that the enforced disarmament atmosphere in the 1920s convinced German naval designers to adopt smaller caliber guns to avoid angering the Allies, that is perfectly fine (and is in line with what most sources say, and actually what I wrote in the class article). But the claim that there was any kind of legally-imposed restriction on guns over 28cm caliber is patently false, and we should not be repeating it.
 * Here's a question: what do Gardiner & Brown actually have to say on the issue? I'm wondering if this is actually a misreading of the material. For instance, this book sounds like it could be talking about the limitations on new builds, but is actually just talking about the old pre-dreadnoughts. Parsecboy (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote, but your line of argument seems rather simplistic. Okay, so the Treaty does not state that there was a specific limitation on gun calibre. Sources which say this are correct. However, Article 181 says that "...the German naval forces in commission must not exceed: 6 battleships of the Deutschland or Lothringen type..." (my emphasis). A greater number or a more powerful ship would be a violation of the Treaty. The Deutschland and Braunschweig classes mounted 11" guns; any larger calibre would exceed the specification. Sources which say the Germans were, therefore, limited to 11" guns are also correct (and this isn't "misreading of the material" - they are quite clear - try Eric Osborne's "Cruisers and Battlecruisers" (pg. 113) as well or various others). They have picked up on the loophole between 181 and 190; so did the Germans. Ask yourself why they picked this specific calibre and not another. Why was this politically expedient? Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading far too much into Article 181; the wording of the treaty was intended to prevent them from keeping the Nassau and Helgoland classes that remained in Germany and thus hadn't been scuttled at Scapa. If the Allies had intended to limit gun caliber, they certainly wouldn't have shrunk from doing so in Article 190; Versailles isn't exactly a subtle document. And even if that implication was there, 6 x 28cm surely exceeds 4 x 28cm, does it not? As for Osborne, he simply repeats the false idea that there was an explicit limitation imposed by Versailles, with no explanation or connection to the Deutschland or Braunschweig class ships.
 * Answer me this question: if Versailles prohibited guns larger than 28cm, why did most of the design variants for the Deutschlands carry 30.5cm or 38cm caliber guns? These were prepared in the 1920s, long before Hitler's rise to power, and long before there was any intention to brazenly break Treaty limits (though they were fine with breaking them in secret on displacement - but you can't exactly pretend a 38cm gun is a "28cm gun"). Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The question isn't "why did most of the design variants for the Deutschlands carry 30.5cm or 38cm caliber guns"; it is "why didn't they use them"? I've seen various explanations for this (French occupying Ruhr etc), but none of them seem any more or less credible than the oft-repeated point that there was an implicit limitation in the terms of the treaty. As to the 6x or 4x point: yes, sure it would be a heavier broadside, but it doesn't matter so much if your battleships are relatively well protected against that calibre. Again, I had thought that was the idea - limit the Germans to particular ship classes/displacements so that they could not perform any kind of offensive action outside coastal waters or with any reasonable chance of success against 'modern' Allied warships.
 * Anyway, this is going to go around in circles. There are sources supporting both points of view and your line is that authors who claim an implied calibre limitation are repeating a "false idea". Even if it is "false" I would like to know why so many of them have come to the same conclusion. I haven't been able to find any clues and I get the impression you would have said so if you knew. Would you mind if I summarised this discussion on the WikiProject Military History page and sought input from others? It would be good to nail this either way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that if they were legally unable to use something larger than 28cm, why would they even have bothered designing ships with 30.5cm and 38cm guns in the Weimar period? As for why the 28cm, according to Whitley, the design staff actually wanted the 30.5cm, but apparently Germany was only allowed to build 1 gun of this caliber per year, which would have drawn out the construction prohibitively. The 38cm was just too large and heavy to fit a meaningful number of guns into a ship that size. The problem we have is that none of these sources state that the limitation was implied. They treat it as an explicit limitation, as if Article 190 includes it alongside the 10,000t limit, which was how you presented it in the article. Even if there was an implied limitation, presenting it as if it was explicit is plainly wrong. The Germans may indeed have interpreted the treaty to limit gun caliber, but as I've said repeatedly, saying that "the Germans interpreted Article 181 to limit the caliber of main guns" and "the Treaty of Versailles limited Germany to 28cm guns" are two totally different things. I don't dispute that the choice to use 28cm guns was politically expedient (just as it was for the Scharnhorsts)&mdash;far from it. But political pressure or potential interpretations of treaty language are not the same thing as being legally bound to a certain restriction in explicit language.
 * As what seems to be our custom, I think we have been talking past each other. We might as well try to get wider input on this. Parsecboy (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm currently at the US National Archives, and am looking through the seized German navy records, which go back to 1918. If I come across anything on the Deutschlands design process relevant to this discussion, I'll let you know. I'm wading through the SKL war diary at the moment. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to show my ignorance I didn't even know the German naval records had been seized - I would have assumed pretty much everything had been destroyed during the last days of the war. Good luck in your search.
 * Anyway, I've tried to neutrally summarise this discussion on the WikiProject Military History talk page - please feel free to clarify if I've misrepresented your position in any way. It's rather an obscure subject so I'm not holding out much hope that anyone will know, but it's worth a try. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the archives should have been torched in early 1945, but the soldiers who were supposed to burn it all used the gasoline and wood to keep warm during the particularly cold 1945 winter instead. Go figure. The British seized the records, made a copy for themselves and the US, and eventually returned the originals to Germany in the 1960s. There are some gaps (the Admiralty building was damaged by a fire from a bombing raid in 44 or 45), but the naval records survived much better than the army records. In any case, I haven't found anything yet - I spent Thursday and Friday copying the entire BdU logs, which was fun.

What might be our best option, given the probability that no one will be able to give us the right answer, is to try to trace the books backwards in time. The 1922-1946 volume of Conway's, which states there was a gun caliber restriction, was first published in 1980 (the chapter on Germany was written by Erwin Sieche). Do we have anything on the claim that there was a restriction earlier than that? Interestingly, Hitler's Strategy (1951) makes only makes a mention of displacement restrictions on page 4 (though it is admittedly pretty vague). This book, from 1957, looks like it should have an explanation of the naval clauses, (since it does go into a lot of detail on the army and air force clauses) but annoyingly several of the pages are not viewable on Google Books. We do have a copy in the OSU library, and I'll be back in Columbus next week, so I can check it out then and see if it can help us get to the bottom of this.

Here's another option: User:MisterBee1966 has access to a number of German sources, he might be able to shed some light on it. I'll drop him a line. Parsecboy (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I just read though O'Brien again (page 112 and onward), and I think I may have figured out the confusion. The armament question of Emden seems to be illustrative; the old cruisers retained under Article 181 were all armed with 10.5cm guns, and the Germans wanted to equip Emden with 15cm guns; the NIACC approved the armament but restricted later cruisers to 15cm guns, instead of 19cm guns the Germans wanted. It seems that although Versailles did not itself restrict gun calibers, the arms control regime it put in place did in practice. I suppose we're both right. O'Brien doesn't clearly connect the Emden experience with the Deutschlands, but it seems probable that it was a similar situation. It would be helpful, though, if we could find a source that specifically ties a NIACC decision in regards to the 28cm guns.
 * In any case, I don't know that the nitty-gritty about why the Deutschlands ended up with the 28cm gun instead of the 38cm or 30.5cm really fits in the battlecruiser article - it seems to be a little too much in the weeds for what should be a broad, overview article. The important take-away is that the Germans decided on a cruiser-type ship that could theoretically overpower the Washington cruiser. Why they settled on a particular caliber is better suited for the class article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I'm not going to argue to include too much detail in the BC article. I had been looking for amendments to the Treaty but had turned up a blank. Your explanation for the calibre confusion sounds very plausible. I did a quick Google search and found something to suggest the Commission limited Germany to only one gun larger than 11" per year. I'll look for a proper source for that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we got this figured out. Whitley mentions that the Germans wanted the 30.5cm gun, but they were limited to building one gun per year, which should suffice for the source. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I finished going through the German archives today, and there wasn't anything relevant - there was one document titled something along the lines of "The German Navy's struggle against Versailles, 1918-1935", but it unfortunately dealt primarily with coastal artillery and aircraft. Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started re-reading the relevant chapters in
 * Prager, Hans Georg (2001). Panzerschiff Deutschland, Schwerer Kreuzer Lützow: ein Schiffs-Schicksal vor den Hintergründen seiner Zeit (in German). Hamburg, Germany: Koehler. ISBN 3-7822-0798-X.

The book explains the background, constraints leading to the Deutschland class very nicely. I will sum up my findings and translate them soon. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good. Thanks. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Prager page 18, the Versailles treaty restricted the displacement for all replacement ships of line (Linienschiff) to 10 000 tons but made no statements about the number of guns nor calibre of guns. On page 19 he argues that contemporary opinion was that the weight limitation would not render a design with more than 4x28cm guns. The Germans seemed to be unsure of what would fly with the British and slipped a question by Konteradmiral Freiherr von Freyberg-Eisenberg-Allmendingen. He asked the British ambassador if guns of 30.5cm would be allowed. This request was denied but confirmed the 28cm of the SMS Preußen which was replaced by Panzerschiff Deutschland. To meet the envelope of the treay 18 different design variants were calculated. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's interesting and seems to confirm Parsecboy's theory that it came out of discussions following Versailles, but I think we are still missing something. For this idea to have got into various authors' minds I feel there should be something more definitive. The admiral asking the ambassador the question might have cued a discussion somewhere, but I can't imagine that he came to that decision on his own. Does the source say anything about who was interpreting the treaty and enforcing it? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The NIACC was the organization responsible for interpreting and enforcing the treaty's naval clauses - they were involved in the design of the light cruisers (rejecting twin turrets for Emden and caliber increases for the later cruisers, for example) and other vessels, at least as far as approving the designs. Whether they were directly involved in the armament question for the Deutschlands is unclear, but the ambassador may have conferred with them, or the Germans simply took the ambassador's response in conjunction with previous restrictions imposed by the NIACC and decided to not push their luck. Presumably some author made the connection between the NIACC and the ships' armament, and others either made the same conclusion or simply copied the first. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes, that was partly a rhetorical question. You mentioned NIACC previously so yes, one would imagine that the ambassador would have contacted them. However, there ought to be something somewhere saying that the NIACC came to this decision and communicated it to the German designers. I find it hard to imagine so many people would come to the same conclusion on the basis of such a loose connection given that the Treaty does not state there was a calibre limitation. You'd think someone would have challenged this before now if there wasn't more conclusive evidence. However, I haven't been able to find very much on the NIACC anywhere. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * side note: this is the Admiral de:Albrecht Freiherr von Freyberg-Eisenberg-Allmendingen I mentioned earlier. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Question for the experts: Prager states that the 28cm C/28 triple (later also made available for the Scharnhorst class) turrets were the only triple gun turrets were the central gun could be loaded without bringing the turret back into its starting position. This was achieved by designing a revolutionary revolving loading platform under the gun house. According to Prager this was kept highly secret and only copied after 1945. Can you confirm this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to John Campbell's Naval Weapons on World War II, the USN's 16in Mk 6 and Mk 7 guns, used in the three WWII-era fast battleship classes, all had revolving loading platforms, and they were all designed in the mid-late 1930s. The British 14in Mk VII gun (KGVs) also had a revolving shell ring, and the Italian 381mm /50 guns (Littorios) appear to have had a revolving loading mechanism. It seems that the development was widely adopted by the 1930s, so Prager appears to be wrong on that count. Campbell oddly doesn't mention anything about the revolving loading platform of the Deutschlands or Scharnhorsts, so I can't confirm that part. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I was unclear, Prager did not say that the C/28 triple gun turret was the only turret with a revolving platform. He said that it was the first (and until 1945) the only triple gun turret where the central gun could be loaded ... But maybe it is irrelevant. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A much-belated discovery
Hey Wiki-Ed, I came across something just now that seems to explain the issue and confirms the NIACC bit (though not explicitly so), and I thought you might be interested. It's in German Battles of World War II in Action by Robert Stern:
 * "The Versailles Treaty limited the post-World War One German Navy to eight obsolete pre-Dreadnought battleships and a small number of cruisers and smaller units. This treaty allowed the replacement of these old battleships when they reached 20 years of age. The specifications of the allowed replacement vessels were only vaguely laid out in that accord. The only firm requirement was that the standard displacement couldn't exceed 10,000 tons. Beyond that, any design that exceeded certain limits had to be submitted for approval by the Allied navies. The main gun caliber limit beyond which approval was required was 28 cm (11 inches) and the Reichsmarine leadership was quite certain that larger guns would not be approved." (page 7)

The body that would have given or withheld approval for a specific design characteristic is most certainly the NIACC. I think that's solved the last missing link. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I think that proves the point you were making before, but it would be nice to see if there was anything supporting the secondary sources. The (British) National Archives in Kew are not far from me - I may as well pop along sometime to have a look at the NIACC records (Note to self - ADM116/2038 to 2046 and ADM116/2113). Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds good - I'd be interested to hear what you find. Parsecboy (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

SIS - Box 850
Are you reading the same references I am? The first says:
 * SIS: Secret Intelligence Service (Iaka MI6 - Military Intelligence 6; 'Box 850' after its post office box address in London; 'Six; 'the Friends')...

and the second:
 * Q. Right. Can I ask you to look at the top of page 7,
 * MoD/3/7? And the second paragraph, he says this:
 * "Throughout this period I worked with ..."
 * Then he gives a number of agencies.
 * A. Yes.
 * Q. Are you able to assist us with what these agencies are?
 * A. I know the first three. I do not know the last two.
 * Q. Right. "DIS" is that defence?
 * A. Defence intelligence staff. Box 850 is a synonym
 * sometimes used for the Secret Intelligence Service. CIA
 * is the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States,
 * I presume.

I can re-word the sentence if there's something about it that isn't right, but you're going to have to give me a clue what the problem is. Prouder Mary 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't mention the Civil Service and in any case the word "sometimes" implies infrequent usage rather than colloquial usage. The other source is the only book on Google books which draws the comparison and even then it does not support the statement that the term is used colloquially and/or specifically by the Civil Service. I don't think there is any way you can rewrite the sentence (it is incorrect). If there were more sources supporting the assertion then there might be a reason to provide this information in the introduction, but since there are not to include it would give undue weight to what appears to be a minority view. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Given we're talking about the secret service here I'm not surprised its nicknames are not heavily documented! It is used though, even if a lot less frequently than "MI6" - it is common enough to have appeared in an episode of The Hour for example. I will find some more refs and put it at a more appropriate place lower down the article. Prouder Mary 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to consider that a PO Box is a relic of paper-based correspondence; civil servants, secret or otherwise, use electronic systems to communicate with one another nowadays. It might have been colloquial in the past, but times have changed so we cannot assume that it is today without specific sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine you are right, but that is not the point - even if it was only used in the past, that is a valid piece of information for Wikipedia. Prouder Mary 14:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclusion is important, but not if it infers that civil servants today routinely use a term that they do not use. Anyway, I'll wait to see what references you can drum up. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

wtf?
Quite frankly, I was surprised to find that with these edits 1, 2, you had split, moved around and even deleted some of my comments, and even replaced one with a somewhat demeaning, if not snarky, one of you own. I'll suggest you read Refactoring talk pages, and I'll as that you leave my comments alone. Thank you. -  thewolfchild  00:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to check that yourself: I haven't deleted anything you said - I accidentally missed a paragraph when I was moving one of your responses into the correct chronological place and immediately fixed it. However, don't look for any apology over the section heading - you (and others) have repeatedly started new sections for no obvious reason which, when combined with the inconsistent indentation, has split discussions in half. If the resulting threads had been pursuing different themes this might be okay, but it's the same discussion and it has been made needlessly difficult to follow. This is the second time I've had to refactor the page in as many weeks and, to give you some comparison, I've done that maybe four times in total over the last nine years. Please just take it easy with the comments - we'll get there in the end. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not trying to get in your grill or anything. I had put the comments at the bottom because they were on a different point, that I was looking for a response to. As for the sub-heading, if you felt it didn't belong, then perhaps you should've just removed it. Your changed seemed like a snipe at me. But anyway... I know you feel there is a singular discussion, because you seem focused on how the lead should read. But there is more going on. At first, I just wanted the amphibs recognized as carriers. But now, I feel the whole page needs to go in a broader direction. You have Nick, who is hell-bent on keeping the page the way it was (two years ago!) and seems to blame me for content I didn't add. You have 'Solomon', who did add the content, looking for some middle ground. You have Bill flip-flopping all over the place, not knowing if he's coming or going. A couple of guys popped in briefly to take a stand against non-existent arguments, and lastly, SteelP trying to find an accommodation that best suits policy. The talk page is a mess! And not all by my doing. Anyways, that all said, I do appreciate what you're trying to do there, but I think we need get everybody focused on the same issues at the same time, and we should try and establish a consensus for just what direction we're going to take this this page.
 * Another important thing about this is, there are other pages (lists by country, etc.) that may hinge on how this page turns out. Some of the affiliate pages are a bit of an inconsistent mess right now. -  thewolfchild   21:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. And yes there are lots of different discussions. The wider points you're making, which I happen to agree with, do need to be addressed, but I feel they are irrelevant until we have a stable sourced definition - everything else comes from that and that's the issue I'm trying to keep people focused on. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

HMS Warspite
You are right, HMS Hermione (1893) was renamed R.S. Warspite but then was HMS Waterloo (1833) also renamed R.S. Warspite?
 * Indeed. Good spot. Removed entry and updated the fate of the 1807 ship, which goes part way to explaining why previous editors might have been confused. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: British Empire
Hi Wiki-Ed, this is JuanRiley's last edit with a dispute he had with user Twobells. I brought this up here to make sure if it seemed alright for you, and if it goes according to the consensus in the talk page between you and the two users. Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Edit Summaries
Hi, just a gentle reminder to be a little polite and civil in edit summaries. I undid your edit in Good Faith and did not use Huggle, someone else might have undone it as vandalism. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

superpower
Hi Wiki-Ed. I know that the term superpower was only named after WWII, but the definition applies to the British Empire and meets the criteria. You can see this in the article page of the article of superpower. The originals to be described as superpowers and be properly applied the term (the original 3 as I like to call them) were the British Empire, the US and USSR. Although Britain after WWII and when the term was used, Britain after the war and the Suez crisis ceased to become a superpower, it still had the privilege to have all descriptions to hold such title, specially after WWII.

And besides, when Britain was at its peak (and I'm talking around the Victorian era here), Britain still had the requirements, since apart of the political control it had over its extensive empire that covered much of the world, it also had an Informal empire, an empire based on the British Pound which controlled regions outside the empire without the need to post military bases all over the world like the US currently does right now, since Britain's empire was in every part of the world, Britain could just reach out from the territory she wanted to reach from the nearest imperial territory. One example can be seen in 29:25 of [this documentary] that talks of Britain's ability to bankroll Latin-American countries. Not to mention (and this is going a bit further back in time) that the Monroe doctrine was supported and maintained by Britain, whom the British mostly benefited since they were helping Latin-American countries with gaining independence in order to trade with the Latin-American economies, not to mention that the US only intervened in Latin-America after the Spanish-American war and Latin-America's favorite sport is Soccer, who else brought this sport to Latin-America, certainly not the US or France, (the only time France truly intervened in Latin-America was during the French intervention in Mexico, and that didn't go so well)?

Apart from these details, the British Empire is often described as a superpower, because the term does apply to British Empire. Hope you see this.

Not to mention, the3 US is curently described as a superpower, and even the US couldn't subdue the northern Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, a force the British empire at the time wouldn't had a problem dealing with and still faces problems with Russia, Iran and challenged by Russia and China. Not as powerful as the US, but still not making the US look much as a strong force. And believe that Britain considered intervening in the US during the American Civil War, and Britain did intervene in one way by supporting the Confederacy at first until Britain decided to go elsewhere instead, such as Russia in the Crimean war. (N0n3up (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Yes I know all that. The point is that using the word "hegemon" and "superpower" next to one another is wrong, and that includes turning 'hegemon' into an adjective. A superpower is, by definition, hegemonic. Pick one word (and my preference is to pick the one that was used in a contemporary context).Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What if I put "superpower" before "hegemon"? or "hegemonic superpower" and turning the word "hegemon" into and adjective would be good cause it would be a word naming an attribute, added to grammatically relate to a noun to enchantingly describe it. Isn't there a way "hegemon" and "superpower" can co-exist?. (N0n3up (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC))
 * Not really. It's like saying "superpowery superpower". Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And before you say anything else, it can't be used a comparative. There can only be one "global hegemon" or "foremost global power", but there can be more than one "hegemonic global power". The long-standing form of words was, and is, fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not filing party, just letting you know. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

British Empire
The other editor's contributions seem to be extremely bizarre - see also this, this, and this. I wonder if they need some real world help - or at least a reference to WP:AN/I. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they are a bit. I can't decide whether it's an elaborate troll, someone who is being trolled or someone who, as you say, might need some real-world help. I was hoping that by ignoring then it might just go away (but then I made the mistake of responding - doh). I think your solution was the right one. At least it's focused on the talk page. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too concerned. I am interested to proceed but, cannot claim this day to be a monarch unless, you may count the British Empire which was otherwise entirely gone previous to my claim. The reference you marked earlier has been superseded - see this KING (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen
You've dealt with this editor before - is the all out personal attack his normal modus operandi? I'm starting to think that it may need a separate ANI case on his conduct if it goes on. I'll post tomorrow on what I think the structure should be using his major source - which really does not back what he has done to the article. I'm getting the impression that he is using historiography as a vehicle to write history from his own perspective. Snowded TALK 07:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks - yes, seems that way. Elsewhere he's decided I'm "ignorant" because I refuse to attack his strawmen.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have either a "major source" and do not use the Historiography articles as "a vehicle to write history from his own perspective." I used several hundred sources and tried to summarize what the authors said and what was THEIR perspective. Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting it is weighted evenly. If that was correct then I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have noticed a problem. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you have to read up more on the historiography to understand it. And pay much more attention to people like Peter Marshall whose ideas you garbled & reversed. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rjensen (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom
How sweet. You made an edit without saying why. And when I reverted you, you concentrated on the editor, not the edit. BTW I started a discussion on the articles talk page. Might as well take it from there. (N0n3up (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC))
 * I acknowledge, but you made the first move on november 24th, its up to you to make the case, I've already brought sources to the talk page. here(N0n3up (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Convoy PQ 17
I noticed your recent edit removing Panama and the Netherlands from the list of belligerents. I'm neutral about many infobox parameters, because few are well defined; but presence of the gun crews aboard defensively equipped merchant ships adds ambiguity. Panama was a United States puppet government and flag of convenience for United States ship-owners to avoid taxes and labor regulations; and such ships carried United States Navy Armed Guards. The Dutch government-in-exile maintained a fleet of warships actively engaged in hostilities through the period of occupation, and Dutch merchantmen were armed. Thewellman (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the various governments in exile and the military forces that some of them maintained during the war. However, neither Panama nor the Netherlands had any active warships present during this battle and it is misleading to suggest otherwise. It is also misleading to suggest that the Soviets had active warships in the convoy (they didn't), or that the Germans had deployed a battleship (they didn't). However, one can at least make a case for including them: the former for carrying out searches after the convoy scattered, the latter for indirectly causing that to happen.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding
over the Secret Intelligence Service.

Cantab1985 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re British Empire in World War II
I rolled back your edit here on the grounds of incorrect and misleading edit summary.

There's nothing wrong with the edit per se. Some of the changes you rolled back were improvements IMO, a few maybe made things worse, and some did neither or are arguable. Per WP:BRD you're entitle to roll back edits.

However, you edit summary was "Rv nonsense edits". However, they weren't nonsense edits, and
 * It's rude to characterize a colleague's efforts as "nonsense" when it's not true.
 * When I see "Rv nonsense edits" I am expecting to see a rollback of vandalism or actual nonsense. Misleading edit summaries like that make patrol more difficult.

In addition, your edit summary gives me the vibe that you were just knee-jerking. A fair amount of what the editor did was fine. It seems accurate to me to say that Britain "hosted" governments-in-exile rather than "establishing" them which implies that the British chose the members, but you rolled that back. You and the other editor have different opinions about what should and should not be Wikilinked. India is in Asia by the way. But anyway, it wasn't nonsense. Herostratus (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for fixing that, my bad. WCM email 20:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

People
Oops... totally got that the wrong way round that he'd removed the word. THanks! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

British Empire
At this edit you do not seem to understand the point of the link to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Until 1922, when the empire was already breaking up, Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, not part of its empire. This is a common misconception which it's useful to contradict. Moonraker (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your misconception. The United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland existed between 1801 and 1922. This article covers a period that started well before the kingdoms merged and ended after that state - as was - dissolved. It is incorrect to suggest - as your edit did - that it ruled or administered the British Empire for its entire existence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to have your input in a discussion
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

British Isles
Hi,

I wanted to let you know I restored the edit you reverted since notability only applies to the creation of articles, and not to adding content within articles per WP:NNC.

Also, you might mot be aware that the edit is in fact relevant since there is also a redirect-class article that exists titled, "These islands", which points to the British Isles as the target page.

The relevant talk page discussion is here: Talk:These_islands

Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I called it non-notable - maybe that was imprecise given that "notability" is covered by specific WP policy - but the point stands. If you give something trivial undue weight within a vital article - especially if it's prominently placed at the top of that article - then it will be removed, quickly, as you will have seen. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, ok that makes much more sense that way then. I appreciate you at least providing me with the courtesy of a discussion. Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

HMS Warspite
Although I still hold that it is your responsibility to initiate a discussion to include this content to save you from embarrassing yourself any further with your reverts of every other editor who has been involved recently I have opened a thread on the talk page Lyndaship (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How gracious of you to do what you should have done in the first place. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath".The discussion is about the topic Talk:British Empire. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Diablo del Oeste (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not be disrespectful
You have been on Wikipedia for 15 years, I think you know perfectly well that disrespecting and disqualifying is irrational and not a good idea.

Please do not do it in the future.

Thank you.

Please, I beg you with respect and humility that regardless of whether or not you agree with me on certain ideas or editions of the page do not disrespect or make rude assessments.

Thank you.

"Decisive"
I eagerly await your efforts to enforce proper MilHist style over at Battle of Waterloo, Battle of the Plains of Abraham, Battle of Blenheim, Battle of Ramillies, Battle of Oudenarde, among others. Please keep me apprised of progress! Albrecht (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's whataboutism, but maybe take it up with someone like User:Keith264 - he's very keen on enforcing MoS guidelines on infobox parameters, but only up to a point. I'm eagerly awaiting his efforts to enforce it on said articles (and other famous battles). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: WC views article RfD
I thought you got unfairly pinged there on a valid point, although my comments on noteworthy were meant in a secondary general sense as opposed to a call on whether the notable threshold had been met. If a person’s views in a point of time are not significantly different from those that are the norms of the population of the time, then what is really being commented on is the views of that society (not the individual) and that is a matter for an article on that society (i.e. Racism in 1930s England, not Mr Joe Blogg’s racism). It is only where those views are aberrant or considerably distinguishable from general society at that time that they become a subject of interest in respect to that individual (e.g. Harvey Milk).

My main point was that it was something that, as the lead (single sentence) of that article covered, was an area of constantly shifting and contrary views, making it hard to draw sound conclusions (which the rest of the lightly referenced article tried to) - it didn’t deserve its own article. I believe it was valid to say something of the potentially negative views of WC here on Wikipedia (as opposed to whitewashing it by page deletion), but it seemed to me it could have easily been crunched down (with the rhetoric discarded) to just a couple of sentences on the home WC article (secondary articles only make sense to me when they can stand up on their own - not look like orphans like this one did, only created because they were edit-warring over the the main article). Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the support and I think some others missed your gist - especially with that George Washington and slavery counter-claim by another because that, at least, had made linkage to the reasons as to why certain significant decisions were made the way the were (which is different from saying boo hiss, he had bad views). Kangaresearch (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's subject / object confusion. Winston Churchill is notable; but his hat, his cigar, his racial views are not sufficiently notable to merit an individual article than those of any other man of late 19th/early 20th century. And yes, I ignored the Washington strawman - the article itself mentions how his hypocrisy was noted even at the time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

British Empire Feature Article Review
I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

British Empire
Thank you for your efforts fighting the good fight! What depresses me about being an editor on it is that this year it's Quality Posts Here, next year it'll be someone else who MUST MENTION THE GENOCIDE! And then, because it's easier to critique, and because you can't please all of the people all of the time, a review will always bring up more negative reviews than positive. It's never ending. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I had a feeling you might be watching from the wings. Agree that there's always one or two editors trying to make the article reflect their pet issue. This guy has been admittedly quite persistent, but has never managed to build an argument beyond "here's a list of few people who said it was bad". That argument is easy enough to dismiss - neutrality / undue weight etc etc - but he's manipulating the Featured Article proceses to raise (often specious) challenges on other bits of the article, which then invites others to pile in... and with enough eyes scrutinising for the slightest flaw they're bound to find something (including, it would seem, some odd additions that have crept in over the years despite our best efforts). Maybe if we can clean up some cobwebs without adding POV content on genocides this might be timely. (Trying to be positive.)
 * PS. If you think this is bad, you should see the nutters trying to change your BE map on wikimedia commons. Now they're really annoying. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maps attract the real die-hards. Let's color Havana, Manila and a quarter of Germany and Austria as pink because they were militarily occupied for a few years!   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bit of unsolicited advice.
Just ignore QPH for a while, don't feel you have to reply all the time. Arguing all the time just gives the impression you share his battlefield mentality. WCM email 23:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and true - I recognise the trolling risk. However, there's also a risk that by not challenging him every time he repeats the same flawed argument people will start to believe it (we've seen that enough in the real world recently). It doesn't need to be me, but someone needs to challenge it (I note you've been stepping in too so thank you for that). Incidentally, I don't think your original instinct was wrong in principle (just the wrong target). We seem to have a relatively new but very patient editor who knows how to sigificantly rock the boat with minimal effort, making what might seem like reasonable arguments to the uninitiated, then triggering a FAR which he's then just let roll, only stepping back in occasionally to keep it going. Seems a bit suspicious, but I've no idea how to pursue it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He's admitted to a previous account to explain his knowledge of the wiki and claimed a clean start. However, there are gaps and a lack of overlaps so I would be willing to bet there are others.  I suspect he is using multiple accounts but on different ISP to cover his tracks.  WCM email 17:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nausicaa2cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nausicaa2cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of battleships
Hello Wiki-Ed. I see that you have reverted my edition without taking into account that precisely my edition had been maintained for six months without interruption, without anyone opposing the edition until a very short time and without also considering the edition of two other users, who did not question the edition. Taking that into account, the elapsed time (I repeat, six months) and the editions of two other users without objection, it seems to me that there was already a tacit consensus on my edition. I think the one who really should ask for a consensus is the user who recently questioned the edit and not me. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment re British Empire move
Glad you liked it! --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

British Empire Clive
Hello i noticed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Hastings it says Robert Clive and Warren Hastings are credited with being founders of the British Empire in India. I would come to compromise with you to write that sentence exactly like that in the British Empire page instead of just saying Robert Clive.Foorgood (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not like this please
@Wiki-Ed If you do not agree with my Edit on Warspite i really like you to talk to me first befor you delete a 5 days work. My sources are all reliable and double checked. If you found some errors its ok to remove them but not my whole work. regards Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The cycle is bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-revert. The onus on you to discuss changes which you didn't bother explaining in the first place. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wiki-Ed Ok my bad... :-( As i already said my sources are all reliable and double checked and all paragraphs are related to Warspite. I can´t see any historic or wording errors. By the way where do you like to carry on here  or there   Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The empire on which the sun never sets
Hi @Wiki-Ed, you used to be quite active on this page. There's a discussion at Talk:The empire on which the sun never sets about what is actually a very minor point. I've put too much time into it already. We need a third person to settle it. I'd be grateful if you'd weigh in, whether you agree with me or not, to give some perspective and get a decision one way or the other. Thanks. Doric Loon (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. I was trying to stay out of it, but very well. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Your recent editing history at British Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the British Empire
Dear Wiki-Ed, I saw that you reverted my recent edit of Territorial evolution of the British Empire. You removed the map I added, because of alleged original research. I created this map purely based on the following existing Wikipedia articles : Please read those articles and reconsider your revert. Please do not delete this discussion until the disagreement is resolved in order to avoid an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearones (talk • contribs) 06:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * British Greece
 * British Germany
 * British Austria
 * British Vietnam
 * British Iran
 * British Afghanistan
 * British Surinam, but you're right not in its entirety
 * British Libya
 * British Java
 * British Iceland
 * British Somalia
 * British Eritrea
 * You don't need to worry about an edit war, you'll just get blocked for adding original research, which is exactly what that list is above. You've deliberately tried to obfuscate it with the pipelinks - none of those places were called "British" (insert country name). Unless you can find reliable sources stating explicitly that they were part of the British Empire, we don't count them as such. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Wiki-Ed, I see your point but my intention really wasn't to add original research.
 * Afghanistan, Libya, Java and Somaliland are listed on that same page. Parts of Germany, Austria, Vietnam, Iran and Iceland have been occupied by British forces (s. the mentioned articles above). I thought it would be consistent to add those as well because British occupations of German East Africa, (French) Togoland and St. John are listed on that same page, but I should have edited the list first instead of immediately inserting a map with these in the article. There was a British Military Administration in Eritrea, I thought it be counted as part of the British Empire, but I'm not a specialist, so it's certainly not up to me to decide this question. When it comes to Greece, I still need to research this more. I've possibly made a mistake about it.


 * I don't know how to proceed now. Should one add the mentioned occupied territories to the list? Or remove the occcupations that are already in the list in order to make to article more consistent?


 * When it to comes to the list above I just wanted to make the list visually easier to navigate, some of the articles' titles are quite long, but I admit that it was somewhat incongruous on my part.


 * Regards, Thearones (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Making maps of the British Empire is a pretty thankless task, mainly because it's hard to define what the British Empire actually was. If you want to invest time in this then I think you have two options:
 * (a) Use the map at the top of the page to determine what should be in scope and exclude the rest. As I understand it, the editor who originally created that map in 2008 was assiduous in checking that the sources explicitly stated such-and-such a country was part of the British Empire. If a place isn't included, it's because he couldn't find a reference. You could then focus on differentiating the core components - dependencies, dominions, colonies and protectorates - which should be easier because there will be sources - and ignore the bits which are contentious.
 * (b) Change the title and legend of the map to make it clear that it includes countries within the UK's sphere of influence as well as the more clearly defined entities of the Empire (i.e. dependencies, dominions, colonies and protectorates). However, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. The table in the territorial evolution article is almost entirely unsourced and seemingly contains pretty much everywhere in the world that a British person set foot in, so it's not a good guide. If you do go down that road then I'd suggest - again - using the map at the top of the page as a guide to which places were considered to be formally part of the BE by reliable sources (i.e. what should be dark teal), and then correcting the rest (your teal and light blue categories) and making it clear in the legend that they were different entities - affiliated to but not part of (etc). So, for example, reliable sources don't consider Afghanistan (and other 'protected states') to have been part of the British Empire, so it would need to be bumped from the core group into another category.
 * A further step down the slippery slope - but perhaps not OR - would be to apply some sort of criterion to limit the scope of the map (e.g. "territories that were part of the British Empire for at least 25 years") so you cut out some of entries that are only there because of roving-adventurers-with-flags or temporary occupations during small-scale wars etc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)