User talk:Woody/Archive 7

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ta
It's amazing how often I cock up those templates! Ged UK  18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Villa Park images
Hey, there are a bunch (126) of free Villa Park images here. You might want to look through them, perhaps upload some to commons. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2010-01-11 12:01
 * Use the flickr upload bot to quickly upload images from flickr. JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2010-01-11 12:09

3RR Warning
Thanks for the 3RR warning, however, if you look at my edit summary you may note that I was reverting to the previous version after the other editor had introduced incorrect information. He in turn was trying to correct his mistake, neither would be classified as edit warring as it isn't a content dispute. Regards, Justin talk 11:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Beg to differ all you're like, you're still wrong, if you think correcting a mistake is a "content dispute" and NOT A GOOD REASON and templating the regulars is helpful. Example, Strong did not discover the islands in 1690, they were discovered between 100 and 200 years earlier.  A pretty fundamental error really. Justin talk 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that if I were to edit Moon, adding that the moon is made of green cheese that would be a "content dispute" per your definition? Justin talk 14:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that you gave a 3RR warning to both Justin Kuntz and me. I made a complex edit based on information that I found and added it to the article. Justin made a tart comment about one part of the edit and reverted my work wholesale (his first revert). I changed the part that he objected to (my first revert) but he reverted it wholesale once more (his second revert). I took into account his further objection, made a further change and reverted once more (my second revert). He has now reverted my edit wholesale once again (his third revert). It would appear from this that Justin is in breach of the three revert rule, but not me. If I have miscalculated, please inform me. Nevertheless, I will take heed of your warning and not make any changes in this part of the article for the specified period.


 * I think the record makes it clear that I have made more than one attempt to deal with Justin's stated objections. Despite this, he has persisted in his combative approach "(Undid revision 337359837 by Michael Glass (talk) rv its still wrong, Strong led an expedition sponsored by Lord Falkland". The words that he reverted made no statement that would contradict what he asserted were his reason for reverting that third time. My edit read (in part):


 * "The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong, who encountered the islands in 1690. He named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name extended to all the islands.


 * In making this he clearly breached the three revert rule. Justin's usual mode of operation is to revert, revert, revert. See . Perhaps you could suggest to Justin that a more co-operative approach would get more results. For example, I would have been far more impressed if he had revised and improved my edit instead of reverting it wholesale. Michael Glass (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Woody, you left the following note on my talk page:
 * I have noted the number of reverts but prefer to come to an amicable solution rather than blindly blocking. Any further reverts from this moment on will result in blocks. In response to your note about specified period, please note that 24 hours is not a blind limit, simply waiting 24 hours to continue reverting is still edit warring.
 * I suggest the way forward is for you to open up a discussion on the talkpage of the article that invites comments regarding your additions. Hopefully you can both then collaborate to come up with a solution to the issue. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This ruling reads to me like an indefinite block on either of us changing this part of the article until we have agreed on the wording. Justin's response to this, so far, has been silence. In effect, you have rewarded him for breaking the 3RR rule with a veto on my changing that part of the article. Thanks a lot!


 * I have followed your advice about taking the issue to the talk page and quit editing that part of the article for 24 hours. That time is up and I am not prepared to sit round doing nothing. Justin has only objected to the wording that concerns John Strong. I have proposed to change the wording that he has not voiced any objection to.


 * If you have any comments on this course of action, please advise. Michael Glass (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I received your message and have agreed to wait 72 hours. Please see the talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive posting
Justin Kuntz (or someone using that name) has put the following on Talk: East Falkland. . I don't think that this comment or the comment description is appropriate. What can be done about it? Michael Glass (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonder if I might ask a favour
Hello. If you have the time, I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at what's been going on at Darlington F.C.

A couple of weeks ago an anon editor 91.106.xx.xx asked for my help with the article as they'd noticed I'd previously had problems with an anon 79.69.xx.xx who edited Darlington player pages according to their personal MoS and ignored all messages  and the same had apparently been happening with the club article for some time. 91.106.xx.xx posted to the talk page inviting discussion, and I did the same, with suggestions for improvement and request for help, and notified the anon 79.69.xx.xx and also User:Squares18, who I assume to be the same person. Neither replied.

91.106.xx.xx trimmed the very recent history, and I started work on the article, slowly, but 79.69.xx.xx kept removing the changes, including deleting sourced material, re-adding mistakes in the records section, re-adding a complete list of staff right down to the deputy safety officer copy-pasted from the club site, and breaking the ext link to the club site, to be re-reverted by 91,106.xx.xx or me. They have (last time I looked) accepted the updated early history and colours/badge sections, and the trimmed recent history, but reversions of anything else continue on a daily basis. Again, I asked 79.69.xx.xx to discuss the matter, not as civilly as I might have, but it really is disruptive, it's been going on for long before I ever got involved, and it's outside my competence.

If you haven't got the time yourself, please let me know and I'll take it to WP:ANI, where they'll probably block us all for edit warring :-) thanks, Struway2 (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Hopefully that'll do the trick. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They've never spoken to anyone, AFAIK, going back ages on player articles, yet they keep all the players and the club article completely up-to-date, even if the recent history does go way over the top in terms of detail. And, when it suits them, beautifully referenced. What I find most tiresome, apart from the silence, is their determination to put back things that they know are actually wrong, like mistakes in the records, and the non-existent Second Division (Northern Section), and the broken link to the club site.
 * Your notice looks fine. I'll continue to leave the wording of any changes I want to make on the talk page for a few days before adding anything to the article: the next bit will have to be cutting the last five years of the history from a page and a half down to a few lines... Please don't hesitate to tell me if you think I go too far: in the absence of any "discuss" phase of WP:BRD, I don't want risk being bold turning into being possessive. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reaney spammer
You beat me to it by about two seconds. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen
I requested a citation for a specific comment in this article, but you reverted it here when reverting another edit. I assume that you reverted my citation request by accident. Now that the article has been protected, I can't reinsert my citation request. Please could you do so (assuming that you believe my request was valid)? Thanks! 86.159.221.187 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great! (But please note he's not a living person since he has just died!!) 86.159.221.187 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent
TomStar81 (Talk) 06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tutankhamun
Hey, I was going to edit the section on Tut's lineage. According to Zahi Hawass (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/201021771013490275.html), the identity of his mother is not confirmed, though Hawass himself believes Tut's deformities are the result of Akhenaten's marriage to his full sister. In other words, the section appears to somewhat contradict the actual results of the DNA testing. Tut's mother at this point cannot be certainly ascertained according to the results of that study.

Oddly (also), I am just now looking at this ABC. It suggests (as a non-controversial fact) that Akhenaten and his sister were the parents. However, it only identifies Akhenaten as the father. In other words, I am not sure that the Wiki article is actually presenting the consensus view as it has been so far offered.

Michael Sheflin (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

~I guess additionally, the mummy KV35YL was identified in this section as the mother. Though the ABC article identifies this mummy as the sister of Akhenaten, the direct connection between this mummy and Tut's mother appears to be OR. Michael Sheflin (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aston Villa National Records
Hi Woody, I've added a national records to keep with in line with other prominent clubs such as Everton, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everton_F.C._records#National_records and Arsenal, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C._records#National_records. Any help you can give in adding to it would be gratefully received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.30.19 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona
hiya, so you on the volunteer page, so I thought I'd ask whether you'd like to review FC Barcelona, as I'd like to get it to featured status. Cheers! Sandman888 (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AVFC 2009/10 Season
Could you format all the league and games for me on this page please? Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Maverick
Enoch Powell fan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.31.125 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but that link was regards to his maverick tendencies, and not towards his attitudes, be they racist or not. That is discussed in the text and your edit was misleading to the reader. If they clicked maverick they wanted to learn about mavericks, not racists. Woody (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact beats Opinion
I have facts to support my argument, I thought Fact overruled opinion/assumptions?

Simba1409 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Association football
Sorry, I didn't see your comment until after my last revert. However, you can't deny that User:Simba1409 is wrong in his assertion that "soccer" is not a valid nickname for the sport. – PeeJay 10:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review
Hello, I've been working on an article about the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final and have opened a peer review for it. My hope is to get it prepared for a successful FAC review. It has already received excellent feedback/improvements from one peer reviewer, but I believe it still needs more. In particular, I believe it probably needs a thorough copyedit the most, but any feedback would be helpful. Please, if you have time, take a look at the article, provide feedback, and learn a little bit about the most recent edition of the U.S.'s oldest soccer tournament. --SkotyWATC 20:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

John Simpson Knox VC
Woody, it's been announced in the last day or so that the VC of John Simpson Knox is to be sold at Spink's next month. I've given his article a bit of a bruch up, but if you have any more sources, could you add some more, as this may prompt a bit more interest in the article, particularly if the VC ends up receiving more than its estimate of £100,000 and/or is bought by Lord Ashcroft. David Underdown (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations Woody, and thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election
for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Why u put advertisments on my page, are you a Villa fan ? If yes can you admit sincerly that the new crest doesn't create you a sensation of discomfort when u see it ? X3nnon (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They aren't advertisements, they are warnings that if you continue your behaviour then you are likely to be blocked from editing.


 * In response to your question, I am a Villa fan and no I don't feel discomfort when I see the badge. If you have an opinion, then make it clear by sending a letter to the board or writing to General Krulak on one of the fans messageboards. I am sure he and all the other Villa fans that you claim to represent will be happy to respond to your criticisms. Woody (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[[Manchester United F.C.
Hi. I'd really appreciate it you could review Manchester United F.C.. Aim is to get it to FAC quite soon, so could do with some comments. Peer Review page set up. Thanks Tomlock01 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Darlington F.C.
Hello. Re the edit notice. Think "seems to have done the trick" may have been wishful thinking :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He's probably popped up again to provoke me into finishing off cleaning up the article :-) still needs a proper lead section and bits and pieces doing. As to the derby, I'm not looking forward to it at all. We got enough of a seeing-to on Sunday by a team with pace on the wings, although Citeh have rather better forwards than your lot. I'm not going to this one: £43 is the sort of price my lot were quite rightly criticised for charging. Surely Randy isn't as short of money as the Chinese hairdresser seems to be ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortwave Listeners Project
I am working on a project for a history class. I am adding to an article Shortwave listening. I was wondering if you could give any suggestions on how to make the article better. Nicocorn20 (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article and left some advice at Talk:Shortwave_listening Woody (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for taking time out of your day and looking at this article. I will certainly work on all of your suggestions! Nicocorn20 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'undo revision' advise
Hi Woody, thanks for the advise on reverting large numbers of revisions in one go. I wish I'd known that beforehand :D It will definitely come in handy in future though, hopefully, this one has now been resolved with a final warning for the culprit. Rgds Bealzbob (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion
You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

MP Balance
How does it look to you? To me, it looks like we need another item on ITN, but I'm pretty new to MP balancing! Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. It's almost always a littl bit off on my screen anyway. Cheers, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC bot
Woody, The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman currently still shows with a green title and the description "A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently a featured article candidate.", although it was promoted to FA two or three days ago. Seems to be the bot malfunctioning. Could you have a look? Thanks. -- JN 466  22:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when I go to the page it reads "Featured article." The talkpage is as it should be and that is what the script reads. I think this is a problem on your end. Have you tried purging your cache? Woody (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good from here, too. (Thanks again, Woody!)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I purged my cache several times, no change. But it's fine on my son's computer, so the problem must be my end. Cheers, -- JN 466  14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

de Bothezat helicopter
I've expanded the intro a bit and found sources for additional specs. Would you mind taking a look at it now? Thanks! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 03:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Much thanks. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Louis Klein
I think you had assessed this article last week, but there is no actual assessment added (and it has been deleted from the assessment list). Would you add the assessment now, please? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian battleship Riachuelo
I have fixed the bare references in there, so I would like it reassesed for B-class. Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Lucas Guest
Hi Woody, Thanks for your assessment of Ernest Lucas Guest. You've said it doesn't meet B-Class standards for references and citations. Please could you provide some further guidance on what's lacking (to reach B-Class)? FunkyCanute (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish ship Duque de Tetuán (1874)
Hi there. I was wondering if you could take a moment to reassess Spanish ship Duque de Tetuán (1874)? The concerned you raised in its earlier review have been addressed, I think - I found a reference for the cite-needed statement, and added an explanation about its service (or, technically, lack therof), having exahusted the sources available. Thanks! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

name change or no change
Hi, after 15 days I am looking for an Anministrator to close this discussion, would you do it or ask another Admin to do it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Knight Bachelor cut and paste move
The Encyclopedia has it lowercase here. It is not a proper title, so is not capitlised, like The King of England, or The Duke of Wellington. When not a proper title, they become simply king, duke and knight bachelor. There is an Imperial Society of Knight Bachelors, which use the capitalisation because it is the title given to the members of that Society, and this may be the source of the confusion. However, knight bachelor is a general term used across Europe as the lesser of the two knighthoods, the other being Knight banneret, which is correctly not capitalised. So if the cut and paste is not preferred, could I ask that you move Knight Bachelor however way would be? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

John Caligari
Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! It already looks much better. Thank you again! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops
I just realized my deletion summary here is inaccurate and I was the one who moved it to the disambiguated title instead of its old location at simply Bla Bla Bla. Nevertheless, I think the redirect is harmless and can stick around. Thoughts? – xeno talk 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it is pretty harmless, I am certainly not going to make a big deal out of any restore. I just didn't see any reader typing it in the search box when I deleted it, though I will admit I certainly paused before deleting thinking along the same lines as you. As it is, I suggest we just leave it as is. Woody (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown
Oh dear, didn't see that one. :) TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! ;) Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sea Viper - again
Shem1805

Royal Navy
Hi Woody. Really respect your inputs. Would you please mind commenting on the current Royal Navy peer review? I could really do with some extra perspectives. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, it has been on my to-do list since you opened it. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. Do you have any memories at the back of your mind about controversial Royal Navy issues before the end of the World War II? I want to be able to extend the balanced coverage further back. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Copy of reply: Not many off the top of my head, you have Jacky Fisher's spending, Churchill's well documented issues, perhaps the press coverage of Jellicoe vs Beatty at Jutland (and academics still debating it) but they might be a bit too specific. I am going to my library tomorrow so I will remember to take a look, I'm sure I remember looking at a book last time that I thought might be useful. Regards, Woody (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jutland angle I was thinking about was the poor isolation of shell components which led to the loss of three battlecruisers. The other battlecruiser angle would be the loss of a fourth twenty years later after her class's faults were shown at Jutland but never addressed! Which of Churchill's well known issues do you mean? 'Rum, sodomy, and the lash?' Look forward to getting those details about the book. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gallipoli Campaign (and the resignation of Fisher as a result) and Churchill's subsequent demotion from First Lord of the Admiralty. Woody (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

T45
Woody, if it helps I'll get round to correcting the propulsion section this week. Shem (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I need some help
Not sure where to put this question for debate.: What I´d like to be my first real task: History of Spanish aviation

My greatest problem:


 * Kingdom of Spain
 * Spanish Republic
 * National Faction
 * National Spain
 * Spain

I don´t want to, but if needed I will, write five diferent articles on five diferent airforces.

1. The first period Kingdom of Spain, is easy, like all airforces off this time wasn´t a seperate branch, so I checked other airforce history´s & saw how they solved it.

2. Spain (1939) to Spain  is  simple, just like many others, more or less copied the Luftstreitkräfte to Luftwaffe Nazi Germany to Luftwaffe Germany.

3. Civil war, couldnt find anything similiar, do I consider two diferent airforces in the same period off time; or Republican as legitim & nationalist as rebel, if I do so, I will have a problem as nationalists won & nationalist airforce was the one that evolutioned into next period. How do I get this debated? Spanish wikipedia wasnt off help as the article needs extreme improvening.

4. Not to much doubt on this but just in case: the Blue Division; There is a discussion opened on if it was a Spanish or German unit, my opinion is clear, Spain was neutral, and uniforms where German so unless someone sugests somthing diferent and the discussion gets clear, I wont consider it part of the Spanish airforce history.

Put a few days ago a similliar cuestion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Spanish military history task force, but I wont get an answer their.

--Elloza (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed flag icons from here and provided response at User_talk:Elloza. Woody (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

75th anniversary of Blackpool F.C.
According to another unreliable book I've picked up, Villa played a friendly at Blackpool on 17 October 1972 to mark the 75th anniversary of the hosts. Thing is, 17 October 1962 was their 75th anniversary. I don't suppose you have any information on the game to help clear this up, but I thought I'd enquire anyway. -  Dudesleeper  talk  01:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Robert Ryder VC.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Robert Ryder VC.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 3.b question
Hello. On the peer review of List of FC Barcelona honours it was suggested to get the input of an editor of a FL, which you are with the Aston Villa records and stats page. The question is; does List of FCB honours meet criteria 3.b? I think it's too long to be incorporated in the List of FC Barcelona records and statistics but the reviewer suggested it might. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United
Hi there. I wonder if you'd mind reviewing the above at PR if you get time? Could really do with a hand. Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Template change
Please review my proposed template change here TheBigJagielka (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback
I'm soliciting your comments & opinions here. (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Karen Brady and Barry Fry...
Hi Woody, Thank you for your feedback, can you confrim that my comments regarding Karen Brady and barry Fry are incorrect? I would also like to know your source if you're able to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstratford69 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darlington F.C.
Yes, I suspected as much -- his previous night's insistence on using plural verbs for "club" was the tip. However, I only allowed the edit to revert to Struway2's version since the interim edits from 79.77.167.9 appeared to be even less constructive but were allowed by other pending change reviewers. I apologize if I walked into the morass -- you are right, semi-prot is more appropriate. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivers of Blood
Woody, not sure if this is the place to leave this comment but thanks for your intervention in the on-going Rivers of Blood dispute. It would be good if you could return to the article from time to time to check on future changes. Although I altered the word "popular" to "hated" to describe Enoch Powell (in truth, it could be argued that he was both) I do not think your compromise word "divisive" will last for long because it seems that Schrandit and others are determined that this should be a pro-Powell article. Previously, I had made various attempts to get the word "popular" changed to "controversial" (the paragraph had already contained the word "popularity" but it seems that was not enough for Schrandit - a self-described "natonalist") so I've decided that in the absence of any willingness to compromise on the part of the pro-Powellites that I might as well just go nuclear with the word "hated". I believe that Schrandit is based in Delaware, and am unsure as to what qualifies him as an expert on British race relations, but speaking as a white English resident of the west London town of Southall (which has the largest Indian population outside of the sub-continent) I can assure him that there is no blood flowing on the streets here, and that Powell's speech not only did considerable long-term damage to British race relations but also led directly to black and Asian people being physically assaulted on the streets of this country. This is not a legacy that deserves any sort of praise.Multiculturalist (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivers of Blood
Woody, thanks for your reply to this. Just for the record, although you make mention on my talk page about the importance of impartiality, the majority of the references currently in the Rivers of Blood article are from right wing sources (most notably a biography written by pro-Powell journalist Simon Heffer). When I enacted a small change so as to add some balance, Schrandit rolled back the change with the comment "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not impartiality". However, the two sourced references from The Times newspaper which I added some weeks ago (both of which gave an unfavourable interpretation of Powell's speech) do now seem to be holding - despite initial attempts by right wingers to roll them back. Occasional checking to ensure they remain would be appreciated as to roll back historical quotes from The Times (at that time universally regarded as an impartial chronicle of news events) would be sheer vandalism. For the time being, I've given up on my attempts to insert the words "claimed" and "alleged" at various points throughout Powell's testimonies: it seems some users are not prepared to tolerate these words (despite the fact that the accuracy and truthfulness of Powell's accounts are widely disputed).Multiculturalist (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have mail
don't worry, it doesn't mention Andy Carroll... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My article got deleted :( Can you send it to me?
Hi Woody,

I created a new wikipedia page about Rhino Rack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Rack) and it was unfortunately deleted :(

It was not meant to be advertising, I just wanted to explain who their company was and what they provided. Oh well, I'll start again and rewrite so it sounds nothing like advertising.

I understand you can email me the article back. Can you send it to me with all the code included so I can make my updates and change the style of this article? Jmlnarik01 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

About the FAC
Hi, I've created the reviewing page (if you want you could add several comments to help me fix it!), so can I nominate it know (I've also adequately added a comment that I placed it in peer review for becoming an FA)? CarterRodriguez (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Villa Graph Problem
Thanks for the note. I'm going to update all the graphs soon. I'll make fixing the Aston Villa graph a priority. --Payo (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Levett house colour
I am glad at last to identify you as perhaps being the person who has been 'toggling' with me over many months as to whether the Levett House colour is/was brown or white.

When I left KE in 1957 the colour was brown, and had been so since the replacement of 4 houses by 8 some 5 years earlier.

It seems to me that this matter can be clarified here on this talk page, and perhaps we could now progress that. This I feel would be more appropriate than the toggling to which I have referred, whether or not that was done by you or (as I supposed from the anonymity)a vandal.

I await your response.Flying Stag (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just viewed the KE Talk page, where an anonymous OE queries the colour white for Levett, pointing out that it was brown when he left in 1982.Flying Stag (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

VC TOPIC
Just in case you have not seen this Featured topic candidates/Victoria Cross/archive2 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Rivers of blood
Hi, Woody. You have previously stated that you are monitoring this, So I'm letting you know that I've just made another attempt to add the words "claimed" and "alleged" at various points in this article - so as to highlight the fact that the accuracy and truthfulness of Powell's testimonies are disputed among historians. I have also amended the paragraph with relates to Margaret Thatcher's reaction to the speech, because in the 1998 documentary about Powell she and Heath disputed the content of the phone conversation they had. This passage has no citation anyway. Despite what some Powellites may think, it surely should not be for Wikipedia to take sides between the conflicting interpretations or recollections of Heath and Thatcher on this issue: both perspectives should surely be given equal validity. I fear Schrandit and others will roll back what I regard as these wholly fair, balanced and minor amendments.Multiculturalist (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Premier League FAR
nominated Premier League 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for what you've done on this. I feel somewhat guilty that I haven't contributed anything, but I simply haven't had the spare time. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

POTD fix
Hello, I'm not sure what you were trying to fix in the POTD, but it broke standard uses of the template. It looks like you made POTD/Y-M-D look like the protected version of same; see my rv and comment on Template_talk:POTD/2010-09-12. What isn't working for you? Thanks! –SJ + 02:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File:WWII bell of HMS Illustrious.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WWII bell of HMS Illustrious.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire
Hello. After adding in more citations into the lead and adding in more info into each ship's table, do you think that this list meets B-class standards now? I plan on taking it to ACR in the near future but I'm not sure if the list is even B-class material yet.-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

fix at List of Masonic Grand Lodges
You recently fixed my improper cut and paste move regarding List of Masonic Grand Lodges... thank you for that. Somewhere in the process we lost the material that was at Talk:General list of masonic Grand Lodges... we need to find that material, and move it to Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges. Thanks again. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind... I was able to fix it by looking in the history and "undoing". Thanks again. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

More Rivers of blood
User:Multiculturalist has been defaming myself and another user offsite here and has been attempting to recruit British leftist to introduce POV into politically charged articles. What should I do about this? - Schrandit (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look into it. Woody (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was written before I had fully acquainted myself with Wikipedia rules, and prior to my adopting a username. On a related matter, what did Schrandit (talk) mean when he left this comment about me on the talk page of Britannicus (talk) yesterday: "watch out for the lefties": is it some sort of coded terminology? Multiculturalist (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty straightforward. - Schrandit (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hill 303 Massacre
I believe I have corrected everything you mentioned in the GA review. Let me know. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

rename
Hi Woody. Yes, it is a little bit cheeky, but on the other hand, I'm stuffing up your well established system, so it's not an entirely unreasonable request. I'll see what I can do - hopefully it will resolve your problems. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with being a bit cheeky! - I agree!! After all, if you don't ask, they can't say "Yes". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander McQueen
Now that the Alexander McQueen (brand) is up, shouldn't the Alexander McQueen page be redirected to Alexander McQueen (designer) as 1.It contains information pertaining specifically to the designer that is not part of the brand such as his personal life and 2.Other pages such as Yves Saint Larent have (designer) and (brand) page tags?Reqluce (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unknown French General
Any idea who this well-decorated person is? Photo is from Harvard Art Museum, who says he's General Giroflore... Scewing (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx for the updates. I've added your comments to the other folks I've asked to help hunt down the identity... Scewing (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI- I added image annotations for the identified medals... Scewing (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 00:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Is football ambiguous,should we used a hot-note?
Hi,

I was wondering if you could be so kind as to have a look at Talk:Football as more input is required and your as listed as being interested in sport and/or football at peer review. Gnevin (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth peer review
Hi Woody,

Just to let you know that Ronald Skirth is currently undergoing peer review. As you helped with this before, I thought you might like to have a look at it. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

Dwab3 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

List of countries by future HDI projections of UN
I placed a Db-g7 tag on the top of this page, but you removed it.

Please tell me:
 * 1. According to Wikipedia guidelines, can an editor place a db-g7 request, when this editor is the only one who contributed the substantial content of the page?
 * 2. Would you like to do me a favor? To follow the following description of the sequence of events, which proves (by clear diffs) that I was the only editor who contributed the substantial content of the page?
 * 3. After having read this description, do you agree that I was the only editor who contributed the substantial content of the page?

Here is the sequence of events, which proves that User:Cohneli, was the only editor who contributed the substantial content of the page.


 * On 19:24, 24 October 2010: User:Cohneli created the page.


 * 19:24, 24 October 2010, and 19:39, 24 October 2010: Two identical versions.


 * After 19:39, 24 October 2010, until 21:46, 24 October 2010: All edits made during this period were of User:Cohneli's.


 * 21:46, 24 October, and 22:45, 24 October 2010: The only difference between these two versions was the change of the dashes "-" to the dashes "–".


 * After 22:45, 24 October 2010, until 08:44, 26 October 2010: All edits made during this period were of User:Cohneli's.


 * 08:44, 26 October 2010, and 14:46, 29 October 2010: Two identical versions.


 * 14:46, 29 October 2010, until 17:40, 30 October 2010: All edits made during this period were of User:Cohneli's.


 * 17:40, 30 October 2010, and 16:14, 9 november 2010: The only differences between these two versions are: 1. Deleting blank lines. 2. Changing the word "HDI" to the word "UN".


 * After 16:14, 9 november 2010, until 16:44, 9 November 2010: The only difference between these two versions, is the addition of a Db-g7 request.

Cohneli (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Premier League
Thanks for you edit to Premier League but using Association football like that has been rejected. To me this was the most obvious solution to the issue but appereently not. Maybe you can give your 2 cent at Talk:Football ? Gnevin (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Darlington
Will do. Maybe the League Cup game will be livelier? hopefully not too lively off the pitch... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First time since February they made the major disruptive edit from the registered account. Very odd, seeing as they must have known they'd get blocked. Are your lot going to field a weakened team for the cup game, or are they taking it seriously? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Villa Park
Dude, left some preliminary notes on the first couple of sections of the article. Have plenty more to do, but happy to do so when I get the chance. Hope my comments are useful. Best to you, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Malmö FF
Hello, I have recently listed Malmö FF for peer review, an article I've contributed a lot to. I looked over the volunteers list and found you. Since you have written and contributed to several football related articles with FA status (which is my goal with this article) I figured your opinion would mean a lot in improving the article. That is if you are interested and have the time to look it over and help with the peer review.

Thank you very much --Reckless182 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind mate, peer view has been done by other user now. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918)
Hello again I don't know if you remember this; there was a bit of a row over these pages last year. I'm bringing it up because there are a pile of redirects with various spellings, and they've just caused some confusion again. The one in the section heading is the one that preserves the discussion; is there any chance the others (or some of the others) can be deleted? We have First Battle of the Atlantic, Battle of the Atlantic (1914-1918), Battle of the Atlantic 1914-1918, Battle of the atlantic 1914-1918, and Battle of the Atlantic (World War I). They all redirect to the wrong article now (an understandable mistake); I'm asking about the deletion before I start changing them back. What do you think? And if yes, how is it done? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do remember it all yes, still on my watchlist. I deleted a few talkpage redirects and changed the redirect of Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918) to Atlantic U-boat Campaign (World War I). It doesn't matter that it now redirects to a different page than the original merge as long as the talkpage tag still shows where the content has gone and the R from merge stays on the page to make sure it isn't deleted.
 * There are a few redirects aren't there, but they are all "useful" in my opinion and serve as legitimate redirects and so shouldn't be deleted. The process for deletion is at Redirects for discussion but looking at WP:RFD it doesn't meet the criteria. Regards, Woody (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold War semi-protection
This article is a highly visited good article who has been suffering from daily vandalism for about a week now, all from unregistered users who make little if any contributions to the article. I think semi-protecting it, at least for a short duration will help stop this vandalism. Regards--Macarenses (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Articles for Deletion
I see that a page with this title has previously been deleted by you, i thought that if you can explain or forward me the reasons why the AFD page was deleted regarding the topic of Muhammad i would be more than thankful, because i was trying to initiate an AFD myself for the reasons of WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOR, WP:PLOT, WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOT PAPERS, most importantly WP:SYN, WP:MADEUP, and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I have read the discussions, and have gone with some discussions with the editors and they seem to be circling around the same point that Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Islam and that they can't seem to think beyond that. What they are saying is correct if that is truly how things were. Instead this rule seems tobe selective, and is not neutral in any one sense. For instance, some parts of the article exist because they refer to some Islamic beliefs, and others are not added because of that same rule. I request that the truth be unbiased and equal in all sense. Thank You. HShaltout747 (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)