User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dormskirk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
John Ross
Glad to help. This was definitely a tricky case; the Gent. Mag. obituary of Sir John Ross, KCB in 1835 was written about the career of this John Ross, CB! (The other seems best summarized here; he commanded the 3/95th at Waterloo and retired in 1824 as Lieutenant-Colonel of the Cape Corps, but I don't know that there's really enough for an article.) Choess (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dormskirk. Glad to see you're still working on the army officer biographies. I don't suppose you can remember where you got File:Richardshirreff.png from can you? There's no source on the description page, which technically qualifies it for speedy deletion under CSD F4, but it would be nice to keep it if we can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can't remember because it was quite a while back. I seem to recall that it was somewhere on a NATO site I came accross. Sorry not to be more helpful. Dormskirk (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Nearly two years ago (how time flies!); I've marked it for deletion unfortunately, and it'll probably be deleted in a week's time. Now, if we could only persuade the British government to release their images like the Yanks do, our articles would look much better! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I accept it should be deleted and certainly agree with you that there should be parity between the Yanks and British on images! Thanks for contacting me in advance. Dormskirk (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Philipchetwode.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Philipchetwode.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Danger (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I cannot remember exactly where this photo came from. However it is laterally inverted so I agree it should go. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I added him to the list of Commandants of Sandhurst and then was writing an article. When I came to save it, I found you had beaten me to it in beginning the page, so I have tried to integrate the two. Apologies if I have inadvertently deleted anything of yours, you can sort it out no doubt! Moonraker (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- No problem: you have done an excellent job of it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to congratulate you on the great improvements you have made to this page. Moonraker (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks. And thanks for doing an excellent job of finishing it off. Dormskirk (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- In view of the improvements, at the talk page I am suggesting a change of name. Moonraker (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- In view of the improvements, at the talk page I am suggesting a change of name. Moonraker (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Dannatt
I removed the succession box you added, because I feel we should reserve those for highly significant roles (like CGS, ACGS, possibly COMARRC). A general will have held a lot of commands and positions before he's appointed CGS and a big block of succession boxes at the bottom would look ugly, but it would look strange to pick and choose. Perhaps we should follow a rule of thumb that only three-star posts and above should have succession boxes? Btw, the FAC could do with more comments, and you know the subject matter and the article better than most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your point but if you look at Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein the succession boxes show his brigade and division appointments as well as his more senior appointments. A senior officer will typically only have one command at brigade level and one at division level so we are only talking about adding a couple of boxes. I was not particularly targeting Dannatt - I have added the divisional succession boxes to all GOCs for 1 Division and 3 Division (our two ready divisions). The case can be made that command of the two ready divsions are the only two important jobs in the British Army - all the rest are desk jobs. Dormskirk (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting - I won't add any brigade appointments! Best wishes Dormskirk (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I guessed you weren't after Dannatt specifically, I've seen you adding them to other officers' articles on my watchlist. I'm tempted to remove at least the brigade command from Monty's article. I'd like to take him and Uncle Bill to FAC one day. I suppose having succession boxes for the ready divisions is worthwhile (so I've reverted myself), though I tend to think most other two-star posts and below should be confined to the prose—after all, there are dozens of generals, and each will normally have one staff job and one command in each rank before promotion, so we could end up with a lot of boxes! Btw, I'll see if I can find out who had command of the 3rd Division before Dannatt, I've got his book upstairs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for reverting - I won't add any brigade appointments! Best wishes Dormskirk (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was Cedric Delves. And I agree that Brigadier posts should not appear in succession boxes - we need to stop somewhere. Dormskirk (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is where it would be handy to own a copy of Who's Who! Dannatt doesn't say, but he does mention Andrew Pringle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think the only Major-General positions Pringle held were Head of the Stabilisation force in Bosnia (in 1997) and then Chief of Staff at the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (from 1998). Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll see if I can get hold of some Who's Who entries just to be sure, but the guy I usually pester for them is moving house, so he doesn't have an internet connection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would be good to check it out for certain. I do not have a Who's Who either - I rely on Whitaker's Almanacks but they do not specify who was commanding 3rd Division in 1998 and 1999. Dormskirk (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I certainly don't have 300 quid to spend on a book. There's a small chance my free Credo subscription might contain a relevant document, I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was Delves - see p. 134 of the attached Gulabin Dormskirk (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I certainly don't have 300 quid to spend on a book. There's a small chance my free Credo subscription might contain a relevant document, I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- It would be good to check it out for certain. I do not have a Who's Who either - I rely on Whitaker's Almanacks but they do not specify who was commanding 3rd Division in 1998 and 1999. Dormskirk (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll see if I can get hold of some Who's Who entries just to be sure, but the guy I usually pester for them is moving house, so he doesn't have an internet connection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think the only Major-General positions Pringle held were Head of the Stabilisation force in Bosnia (in 1997) and then Chief of Staff at the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (from 1998). Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is where it would be handy to own a copy of Who's Who! Dannatt doesn't say, but he does mention Andrew Pringle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for uploading File:Performlogo.png, however it would be much appreciated if you could expand or clarify the sourcing information you have provided in the image summary.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done. It was taken from the top left hand corner of the page specified. Dormskirk (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Future of the British Army
I saw your changes to 2nd, 4th and 5th Division. Maybe you would like to edit this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_British_Army_Structure_%28Next_Steps%29? Phd8511 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention to this. Dormskirk (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For being smart :) Lives forever Taken (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
No flags in infoboxes
I adhere to the good faith policy, but understand MOS:FLAGS explicitly states: "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a 'country', 'nationality' or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly prohibit the use of flag icons. The use of country-related flagicons and signal flags in infoboxes for ship articles and military conflicts is appropriate."
Additionally, this article is of a military person, not a military unit, but that is of no consequence. Where can and editor find info to support your claim (MOS:FLAGS is directed from WP:MOS, so there must be something else)? Bullmoosebell (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- You'll note that MOS:FLAG says generally—it's advice, not the eleventh commandment. The use of flags in infoboxes of British military officers (including at least two FAs) is almost uniform and has been for longer than I've been on Wikipedia. I think one of the examples they give is Paul McCartney—his notability has very little to do with his nationality and so whatever prominence a flag give the nationality would be inappropriate, but nationality (or rather allegiance) is much more relevant to a military officer. Monty, for example, was the head of the British Army and would not have been so if he was, say, a French citizen. That particular part of the MoS wasn't written with military biographies in mind and they are (rightly) generally excepted from it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Bullmoosebell. Thanks for your contribution. I don't think there is any need to look wider than MOS:FLAG and the exception contained therein. I believe it was written with military articles, including biographies, in mind. There are literally thousands of articles which follow this principle. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- (Replying to your note on my talk page) You're welcome. I also just noticed the advice in WP:MILMOS: When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. On an almost entirely unrelated note, you might be interested in this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. WP:MILMOS does seem to support the case. Dormskirk (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen, that's a fantastic find. There seems to be conflicting standards between MOS:FLAGS and WP:MILMOS#Flag_icons. I'm hoping someone with more editing capability can bring this to the attention of the powers that be. In the meantime, I'll revert any edits that haven't been corrected already. Barnstars for everyone! Very respectfully, Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- The discrepancy is because the MOS:FLAG was written for Wikipedia generally (and in most cases a flag has little to no use in an infobox), while MILMOS was written with military history article specifically in mind. Remember that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| Thanks for helping with resolving the conflict with flags in infoboxes (MOS:FLAG and WP:MILMOS)!! Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Reply to your post at User talk:Roman Spinner#John Waters (British Army officer)
The above link will point to the comment you posted on my discussion page as well as to my reply.—Roman Spinner (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dormskirk/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Jaguar Land Rover info box
Hi, as a very experienced editor on UK company articles, I would be grateful for your input on a seemingly minor point regarding the infobox of the above article but which does in my view have wider relevance. The issue concerns the presentation of the 'public limited company' suffix to the company name. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Rangoon - Firstly congratulations on your many excellent edits. I would not claim to be an expert on company law but I would personally normally accept whatever is on the Certificate of Incorporation of the company concerned. I assume that in the case it is 'PLC'. I hope this helps. Best wishes Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your reply, and for taking the time to post your thoughts on the JLR Talk page, much appreciated.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Major General Andrew Mackay
I have a recent copy of Major General Andrew Mackays bio that lists various awards and his civilian occupation. He has also featured extensively in Stephen Grays book Operation Snakebite about the battle for Musa Qaleh, Frank Ledwidges recent book on Losing Small Wars - British Military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and has entries in a number of other books on Afghanistan and Iraq. New to Wikipedia - can I send these on to you as you have taken the trouble to set up a Wikipedia page on a somewhat controversial and troublesome recent Major General!
~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubicon51 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the offer. However it probably makes sense for you to add some of the material yourself - especially as you are able to source it properly from the books you have referred to. Dormskirk (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Tate & Lyle (2)
Hi, I left a message further up the page in the T&L section, but wonder if maybe you haven't seen it. Apologies, but I'm not quite sure on the ettiqute of posting on these pages! Anyway, I was wondering if you can help out on the T&L page again. As per last time I have posted a comment on the discussion page with regards to changes that need making to the page. i hope you can help. Many thanks --62.189.220.50 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for not spotting your request earlier. I have now moved the relevant material to the American Sugar Refining article. Please let me know if any more changes are needed. Dormskirk (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic - thank you very much! 62.189.220.50 (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Just noticed the Tate & Lyle logo is also wrong - it no longer has a grey line underneath with the bronze diamond. How do I go about putting a new one up? I can email the logo to you if you need? Many thanks 62.189.220.50 (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For a tremendous contribution, both in terms of quantity and quality, in the areas of companies and British military history. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Would you be interested in collaborating on an article on this formation? Do you have any sources on it? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be very interested in doing so. As usual my interest would be in the General Officers Commanding which I would source from "Army Commands". Unfortunately I do not have any sources on the history and the development of the Division itself or what campaigns in took part in. Thanks for the approach. Dormskirk (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
PwC
Hi, I would be most grateful if you could add your thoughts at a discussion on the Talk page of the above article regarding a proposed move of the article back to the PricewaterhouseCoopers name.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation. I have now inserted a comment. Dormskirk (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks. It's really quite a strange discussion I think! Rangoon11 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| For continuing excellent work on biographies and other British military articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Dormskirk,
I am going to translate this template in French and I have found some differences between the template and the French article fr:Gouverneur de Gibraltar. Do you know who is right? (I am asking you because you have worked on the template). Best regards. Skiff (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the information in the article Governor of Gibraltar is most likely to be correct. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Cubitt
Thanks! They're an odd bunch, these divisional commanders - about half of them have very mundane and stereotyped careers, but several turn out to have unexpectedly interesting backgrounds behind them. (The part that really intrigues me is how many died poor - Cubitt was an exception, but several died living in small flats with estates of a few hundred pounds. I suppose I should write something on officer's pensions to try and figure it out.)
Regarding biographies of senior officers in general, do you have access to the online Who's Who/Who Was Who through your local library? It's worth investigating - I find it's an exceptionally useful resource for these, even if it does occasionally omit some major details. Shimgray | talk | 14:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I don't have access to Who's Who / Who was Who but I do have an old copy of Debrett's People of Today which I find very useful. Dormskirk (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's amazing what you can construct with a couple of bare biographical references! If there are any you do where a WW article would be useful, please feel free to drop me a line and I'll take a look. Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's very kind. I may well take you up on that. Dormskirk (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's amazing what you can construct with a couple of bare biographical references! If there are any you do where a WW article would be useful, please feel free to drop me a line and I'll take a look. Shimgray | talk | 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm doing some research into Bowthorpe, and I was wondering: do you know where I might find a copy of his autobiography, The Sky's the Limit, which you cite in the article? Thanks! TallNapoleon (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly I don't; I think the edits which are referenced to The Sky's the limit were added by user:95.61.117.126 rather than myself. Best of luck with your research. Dormskirk (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ginge Bagnell
Good work on this. This is really an important article given the change in the Northern Army Group defence plans due to his approach. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your kind comments. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
Happy new year! |
| we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 19:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
C-in-C in the East Indies
I noticed you changed the start date for William Hall Gage as Commander-in-Chief East Indies Station from 1825 to 1826. I agree he can't have taken up the command until 1826 as his predecessor died in post in that year, but at present the only source for the start date is the DNB (wikisource version here), which says 1825. I'm assuming he was appointed in 1825 but by the time he actually got there it was 1826 (the voyage did take some months in those days) but to say so without a source to support it would go against WP:SYNTH as I understand it. Opera hat (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are quite correct as to my logic. I am very content to change it back again in the absense of a definitive source. Many thanks for your keen interest. Dormskirk (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Laird PLC
Hello Dormskirk. I work for Laird PLC and we need to update our company logo and the list of divisions. Are you able to make the changes for us? If so please refer to our website for the logo at http://www.laird-plc.com/laird/ and About Laird/Our Business section for the Division names. Many thanks for your help. AWell0707 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now done, I think. Dormskirk (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Start or stub
Hi
In the Edwin Markham (British Army officer) article you have removed the stub tag that I put there recently, writing: 'already assessed as "start" so can't be a stub'. Try as I might, I could not find any indication of this offering being 'already assessed as "start" '.
Either I'm going blind, or there is no assessment.
Incidentially, I notice at the moment there are four lines of text, but five references! Does this mean that there will be more material added soon?
Regards
RASAM (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - The asssment is shown on the talk page - Talk:Edwin Markham (British Army officer). As regards the five references these are annotated within the text to the facts that need sourcing. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
SDL PLC
Hi Dormskirk, by rolling back this content to a version prior to my editing it has led to factual oversights on the page. Would it be possible to roll it back to before you reset it and then if you want to help me maintain the page within Wikipedia guidelines that would be great. - Bailey1985
- The version immediately prior to my editing contains a company milestones section that looks suspiciously like the company milestones section on the company website. The whole point of wikipedia is that it should be independent of the company. Also please note that if you have any connection with this company you should not be editing the article (see WP:COI). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Trafalgar House
I am proposing to extend the limited `history` section at the beginning of of TH, with reference to Nigel Broakes' autobiography and his obituary, et al.
I notice that there is a long list of subsidiary companies taken from an arbitrary date in the past. I suggest that these are irrelevant and should be removed.
In the divisional sections there is nothing on housebuilding, once one of its major profit earners, and I propose inserting a section. Their main subsidiary was Ideal Homes which, before the War, was the largest builder of private houses in the country. I think it merits an entry of its own and if you want to set one up, I will do its history. (There appears to be a small US housebuilder of the same name)
Regards Bebington (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree the list of subsidiary companies should be deleted (wiki is not a directory). I will set something up on Ideal Homes. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Abuse
Could you look at the May 25th lengthy revision on Trafalgar which I had previously reversed on the grounds that there was no explanation for the changes? It has now been reversed with a degree of abuse in the comment.
The guidance on edits states: Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. During the edit, if doing so over an extended period, thetag can reduce the likelihood of an edit conflict. Once the edit has been completed, the inclusion of an edit summary will assist in documenting the changes. These steps will all help to ensure that major edits are well received by the Wikipedia community.
I think he contravenes every line of that. However, I don't want to get into an argument with him and would like it looked at by an administrator.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi - I am not an administrator but I totally agree that abuse on wikipedia is unacceptable. That said he has made so many changes that I cannot immediately see if there is a problem with any of them. Prima facie he is in entitled to make his own changes. On the other hand if his changes introduce any new material which is factually incorrect (and unsourced) then you should feel free to make further edits yourself. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you refer it to an administrator? As far as I can see, he has clearly violated Wikipedia's policy as quoted in my earlier message, and he has been abusinve. The alkternative is that we keep undoing each other's edit, which is pointless or, if this sosrt of behaviour is allowed, I pack up any attempt to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The advice normally is that you should ignore any abuse. I am still not clear if he has made any changes that are actually incorrect. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply.
I am not fussed about the abuse but I have seen people barred because of it. Given the passage of time since I wrote the substantive history of the Company, I am not even sure how much of what he has changed is actually mine - though I suspect most is.
I have not checked the detail of each change either. However, I thought the point of the editing guidelines was that reasons should be given for changes and that widespread change should not be made just becasue one person would have written it differently.
Could you advise me how I progress this to an administrator.
Regards Bebington (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- The best way to approach the administrators is through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I think you have a fair point to make if another editor has been abusive (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). However I don't think you can insist that an editor should desist from making changes just because you preferred the previous style: rather you need to demonstrate that his facts are incorrect or at least unsourced. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Duke of Wellington
Nice work on the Duke of Wellington page. It needed a good cleaning. Cheers.91.125.101.188 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your kind comments. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Mini (marque)
Hi, I would be most grateful for your input at an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of the above article, where there is an effort to restructure the article to de-emphasise the British heritage of the Mini brand. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment added. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
International Airlines Group fleet table
There is currently a discussion on the Talk page of the above article as to whether the fleet table should be removed. As someone who has made a number of contributions to the article it would be good to have your input. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I am not sure that I have strong views either way on the fleet table. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, I'm anxious to avoid running head-on into you. Where I'm coming from is dealing with a series of small rough bits in car manufacturing businesses which for the moment has led me back to this man. Anyway the comment that the authors of the citation on the memorial seem to have forgotten who Herbert Austin was was entirely mine. I think it has to be noted. Does it need any attribution? I have more on F Y Wolseley which I am in the process of making more presentable and then saving it. I'm very happy to discuss anything with you if you would like to do that. Sometimes I have to save interim versions, which isn't a good thing I agree. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am mainly concerned to ensure wiki policies are followed. Feel free to add material as you see fit as long as it is relevant and completely sourced in accordance with WP:SOURCE. This would apply to references to Herbert Austin like anything else. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk. I tried to edit the Wolseley article regarding the claim that he was the inspiration for the character of the Major General in the Gilbert and Sullivan play The Pirates of Penzance. According to the article on the play this is not the case, and it references the G&S biography by Michael Ainger. I understand that I didn't support the claim in my edit, but I do think that the two articles should be brought into agreement. Regards, NavnUkjent 14:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavnUkjent (talk • contribs)
- Fine. Please feel free to amend the Wolseley article but please add a source. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Tarmac
I note that you have been inserting page references for the additional material that I have been putting into the Tarmac history. I did see that the original text had some page numbers for the Richie book. This was a contrast to most of the other building companies that I have edited. I thought that there was a danger of having every sentence referenced Richie and tried putting the note at the end of a relevant paragraph rather than with every single statement. I haven't checked too closely but I think you may have been puttting a specific page number against a sentence which is drawn from several different pages. I have some further material to put in so I suggest you take out your changes and wait until I have finished with the new material and then you can look at the balance of the article. One thing that would be helpful is that if a master note could be put in for the first Richie and then all the references could be in the one section at the bottom.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Dormskirk
I have now finished expanding the Tarmac history so feel free to look at it. One point - I think the section on sustainability at the end is irrelevant. It looks like advertising and if it is required, it should probably go on whichever company that makes those products.
Regards Bebington (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I think you have done an excellent job of the article. I have tweaked the referencing slightly - there is no right answer to this: either you can reference each major fact (my preference) or just put a page range at the end of each paragraph. And I agree with you about the sustainability section. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Dormskirk
Thank you for your kind comments. Bebington (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Building companies
Dormskirk
I have returned to the history sections of building/ construction companies and made some additions and corrections. There are two companies that have biographical entries but no company entries and I think a company page should be created.
1. MJ Gleeson: there is a biography of Dermot Gleeson but nothing on the quoted company.
2. Henry Boot: there is a totally unsourced biography of Charles Boot, the man who developed the compapny before the War; and there is a para on the Boot House but, again, nothing on the quoted company. Henry Boot built more houses than any other company in the inter-war period and there should be a proper company entry.
I know from the company pages you have fixed formats for the opening - would you be able to set them up and then I will write the history - I hae written sources in my own collection.
I notice that there is no entry for Beazer, now defunct, but one of the largest companies in the industry in the 1980s.
As an aside, it is not always easy to get a good flow when rewriting some of the histories. It is often easier to start from scratch but one tries to avoid deleting more original material than necessary. Also, there seems to be an undue reliance on web sites that have vanished rather than printed sources that are readily available.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I totally agree. I am happy to set all three up with some brief details. I will then leave it to you to expand them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dormskirk
I have completed the Henry Boot & Sons page and there are a few points.
You had set up the reference to the Company's "Brief History" with a link to the web site. This is actually a reproduction of a hard copy original and mine is called "Henry Boot A Brief History". I have a preference for sourcing hard copy rather than web sites which can get removed (particularly if a company is taken over). However, the web site is more accessible as a source than the original - is it worth including the hard copy in the citation?
I recommend deleting the entry on Henry Boot the individual. As you can see from the Company entry, his only claim to fame is starting the business and fathering Charles. ANything on Henry is now included in the Company entry.
I will edit the Charles Boot page in the light of what is now a much larger Company entry. I also have additional material.
I have mixed feelings on the Boot House site. It is very small and not wholly accurate. I see people have tried to remove it before. It was one of scores of prefabricated systems, most of which do not feature in Wikipedia.
Regards Bebington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC).
- Hi Bebington The work you have done on the Henry Boot PLC article looks really good. In response to your comments:
- Feel free to cite the hard copy of "Henry Boot A Brief History". It is true that web sites can get removed.
- I would retain the article on Henry Boot the individual. He was clearly of some historical interest and some day someone may expand the article with more information on the person.
- It is great that you are going to expand the article on Charles Boot. I look forward to reading it.
- Again I think the Boot House article should stay. If it is inaccurate you should feel free to improve it.
- Great job and happy editing! Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Charles Boot now expanded and have done a little on Henry. I have left the Boot House alone.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebington (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Dormskirk
All three now finished. I have also modified the personal page of Dermot Gleeson. Small point on the MJ Gleeson box at the start - the accounts are available so no need to have preliminary figures as a source.
Regards Bebington
- this all looks excellent. Good job. On the point of preliminary results such results are always the same as the results in the annual report (I have never heard of them changing for any company). It is just easier to use the preliminary results as they are a much smaller document and easier to open up on the web than an annual report. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dormskirk
Have you seen the changes to Persimmon on 25th June. It is 800+ words on charity donations by a single-issue contributor. It seems out of context and no more than a Company puff. It is not up to me to delete it but it does not seem within the guidance.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well spotted. I have removed it on the basis that it is not notable. Most companies have pet charities. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dormskirk You may have noticed that I have put in the early history of Sir Robert McAlpine - I have no information on the post war history other than the ending of the agreement with Alfred.
By chance, I noticed that there are lists of UK housebuilders and UK contractors but these do not appear to be inclusive. In the housebuilders list I noticed that there is no mention of Bloor or Henry Boot, nor of the those contractors that were also important housebuilders - Costain, Gleeson, Galiford Kier and Alfred McAlpine.
I also noticed that there was only a rudimentary entry for "housebuilding" and nothing on "housebuilders" but perhaps that doesn't matter.
RegardsBebington (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I believe that the post-war history of Sir Robert McAlpine is set out in “McAlpine The First Hundred Years” (published 1969) of which I do not have a copy. As regards, the lists of UK housebuilders and UK contractors, I assume you were referring to Template:Construction industry of the United Kingdom. I have added Bloor, Boot, Galliford Try and Gleeson to the template: there should be no problem with you expanding that template to reflect other missing names if you feel the template is deficient. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ashtons
Dormskirk
Would you like to have a look at this entry, particularly the talk page. This was a very small company on which someone has written at great length, mostly of marginal relevance. I have changed the name in the opening box but do not know how to change the entry name which should be either Ashton or Norman C Ashton. I have put in a short paragraph on its history. I think much of what follows could be deleted. There are many housebuilders of far greater significance than Ashton that do not feature in Wikipedia.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the redundant material. On the name I would be inclined to leave it as Ashtons for the moment on the basis that the company seems to have been generally known by that name. Dormskirk (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Miller Homes
Dormskirk
Here's another one you might look at. The entry was by a single-entry contributor and it looks like a company employee. I have straightened out the history section and put in some citations. However, I think the next three sections could be removed. The Awards - every housebuilder has a string of them. Finances - it is one odd year, Miller Zero - again, many housebuilders have something like that and it is just a link into the Company's own web site.
Regards Bebington (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Again I have removed the redundant material. Dormskirk (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Cairn Energy
I, Dormskirk. Could you please clarify, what you mean by this edit. Also, if you change figures, please also change the references as right now the financial data does not respond to given sources. Thank you.
- Sure. If you look at page 13 it was clear that there was zero income from continuing operations (the amount of £2,307.8 million was from discontinued operations). I have now shown this as £nil. The Operating loss from continuing operations is (1,136.3) as I have shown against operating income (under International Financial Reporting Standards profit / loss is described as "income"). The Loss after taxation from continuing operations is (1,189.4) as I have shown against net income. I have also now inserted a page number in the reference. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
A couple of years ago you edited this article to say Lord Moore (as he then was) was commissioned as a cornet in the 12th Light Dragoons in 1755. I'm pretty sure this should be 1744: as I assume you have access to Heathcote's book on The British Field Marshals, could you check please? Thanks very much. Opera hat (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Heathcote (p.222) says "Charles Moore...was born on 29 June 1730 and was first commissioned on 18 November 1755 as a cornet in the 12th Dragoons". That said, I have come across quite a few inaccuracies in Heathcote's book. Please feel free to amend the article if you have a more reliable source. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Commander Land Forces (British Army)
Needs to be slightly updated to reflect the removal of 2nd, 4th and 5th Divisions.Phd8511 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have made a few more changes. Feel free to update further. Dormskirk (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Idea re Atkins (company)
Hi, I just wanted to float an idea by you of moving the above article to "WS Atkins". Although "Atkins" is now almost certainly the common name of the company, the "(company)" appendage for disambiguation purposes is rather clumsy and "WS Atkins" would in my view be a more elegant solution. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea. According the Annual Report [1] W S Atkins is the correct name. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Dormskirk, hello. I have made a number of changes and edits to the above article today, based on my own historical research at the British Library, on some of the British colonial military officers. I hope that you will not mind my trying to improve this article--and Im very sorry, regarding my previous editorial error/s, I only just realised that youd in fact linked various refs/entries to one source. Thank you for setting that issue aright again! Many good wishes and regards, Khani100 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100
- No problem - Feel free to expand and improve. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I am going to revert this edit that you made to the article above. Wikipedia is bound by the federal laws of the United States and those of the state of Florida in which it is based. The Penal Code is in the public domain in the United States. The laws of the United States do not recognise any copyright in any legislation, including foreign legislation. Please see Edict of government and Wikipedia:Public domain. James500 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The reproduction of legislation is also authorised under the law of India by section 52q of the Copyright Act, 1957. James500 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I note what you say and expect you know a lot more about the laws of various countries than I do. Nevertheless Wikipedia has a fine tradition of ensuring editors do not just cut and paste material that has been authored by a third party - in this case the Indian Parliament. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any such "tradition". Wikipedia often uses the text of public domain sources authored by a third party. See, for example, Template:DNB and Template:1911. James500 (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The "tradition" I refer to is WP:NPS i.e. "Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources". That said I do take your point re DNB. Are there any other examples other than DNB and Encyclopædia Britannica? Dormskirk (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Contact
|
Question |
| Hi Dormskirk,
I am trying to get in touch with yourself to thank you for your contributions and maitenance to the Dignity Plc wikipedia page. I currently work for the Dignity Plc company and have been approached by the corporate side of the business to see if its possible to add some additional content to this page from our financial annual report for 2011. Have you any objection for me writing the information onto the Dignity Plc wikipedia page or providing yourself with the content? If you could come back to me in regards to this. Regards, Martin Dearne |
Hi: I will try and help. Please see my reply on your talk page. Dormskirk (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Mowlem
It was corrct to say that Mowlem was the original developer of London City Airport - it was not just the contractor; I think the original should stand. RegardsBebington (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have a problem with that. It have reinserted it with a source. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikichevrons
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| For bringing all 63 holders of the posts of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces and Chief of the General Staff up to 'B' class. Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC) |
'Offices held' sections
Hi,
Do I take it that these have to be at the bottom, after References? (Just think it looks better with them at the end of the article itself, rather than hidden further down, and couldn't find any guidelines that said differently.) Antrim Kate (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I would not be able to find it in the wiki policies either but if you look at thousands of examples (e.g. Peter Wall (British Army Officer)) that's the norm. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. (You shouldn't find any more now.) Antrim Kate (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Stephen Dalton
Hello
Your article Stephen Dalton is pretty much B class but the Family section is an issue as it is only a few words long is their any chance it could be expanded to two or three sentences?
Gavbadger (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly change it to 'Personal' and add his interests in there? My logic for having 'Education and Personal' in a separate section was partly to make it a reasonable size, but I think you were right to move the education stuff in with his career - it reads better like that. Antrim Kate (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Professional Postnominals
Hi,
I can see why you removed Stephen Dalton's postnoms, but it seems to be a policy that's fairly widely ignored, for academics and lawyers as well as military officers (though it's easier for me to find exceptions than articles that do comply). It also seems to be contradicted by WP:POSTNOM as well, although that does depend on your interpretation of "widely recognisable organisation". Do you understand the logic behind this, or what the consensus is? (My view would be that things like QC should certainly be allowed, and CEng would be nice - partly because I've got one!) Otherwise, where would be a good place to discuss this? Thanks, Antrim Kate (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I don't have strong views here although I think a long list of professional post nominals would be unhelpful. I certainly agree with you regarding QC and I have some sympathy regarding CEng. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Mini Vote
Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Oliver Wyman
Hi. Are you interested to take a look about this? Thank you.---Now wiki (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Comment added. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Dignity plc
Hi Dormskirk,
I work for Dignity plc and I understand you have previously been liaising with my colleague. Thank you for all your advice regarding Wikipedia. We do not wish to edit the Dignity plc page ourselves but there are a couple of points you may wish to consider updating yourself.
Dignity now has 600 funeral locations (not 550) and 36 crematoria (not 30). This is evidenced in the 2011 Annual Report & Accounts but I understand that you may wish to find an alternative source. Dignity plc is a member of the National Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD)which is currently not referenced but you may consider worth including. Dignity plc been identified by the FTSE Group in its FTSE4 Good initiative as a company that meets globally recognised standards of corporate responsibility. In your opinion, could this be included or would it be considered advertising?
Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart Cox (talk • contribs) 15:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have managed to update to 600 funeral locations and 35 crematoria (the press do not seem have picked up on the 36th one yet). However I cannot find independent sources for the other two points. I hope my partial success helps. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. There are also two other websites that you may wish to list. www.dignityfuneralsplc.co.uk is for investors, potential investors and the finanacial media plus we have www.dignityfunerals.co.uk/crematoria which provides details of our crematoria and information for those wishing to know more about cremation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart Cox (talk • contribs) 08:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
BP
Hi, hope that you are well. It would be good to have your input on the talk page of the above article. An editor is continually attempting to make a change to the lead, which is long standing, to make the sentence 'BP has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence.' into a separate paragraph right in the middle of the lead. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I accept your point that the editor in question probably has his own POV. That said I think it would be difficult to cite a wikipolicy which supports an arguement that a seperate paragraph is more POV that running the sentence into the following paragraph. In short I am not sure that the debate is really worth the candle. Sorry not to be more helpful. Dormskirk (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough if you don't want to get involved, and no hard feelings at all. For me having a half a line paragraph stuck in the middle of the lead looks awful, and would also then be the natural point of attraction for the eye. It would be almost the same effect as placing that sentence in bold font. Also, why break that sentence out but not all of the others? Article leads are generally four paragraphs at most. I don't see it as a policy point per se though. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Common sense is on your side. But on Wikipedia I find that you need support from wikipolicies to sustain a position. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough if you don't want to get involved, and no hard feelings at all. For me having a half a line paragraph stuck in the middle of the lead looks awful, and would also then be the natural point of attraction for the eye. It would be almost the same effect as placing that sentence in bold font. Also, why break that sentence out but not all of the others? Article leads are generally four paragraphs at most. I don't see it as a policy point per se though. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The above article has been butchered by a blatant POV-pusher. I have attempted to roll back some of the worst of their efforts but any assistance would be appreciated.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have toned it down some more. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
BP
Do you have any thoughts on the proposal which I have made on the Dispute resolution noticeboard about the article lead? I am keen to now start to draw that discussion to a close as it is proving very time consuming and generating far more heat than light. I appreciate that you stated before that you feel the lead to be perfectly fine as is. Personally I tend to agree but have offered some compromises in order to achieve a settled position. Essentially I have proposed the removal of the sentence about investment in renewables, addition of some info about BP's corporate history and a couple of word mention of Deepwater. I propose that para 1, 2 and 4 of the lead remain unchanged. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have added some more comments. Dormskirk (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm kinda new to wiki editing
I see you improving some of me edits which is really appreciated. How can I learn more about making better changes to start with? I note you enhance my citations...I use the reference button in the default editor...should I use a better editor or write better code? Sorry for a noobie question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robidy (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - Welcome to Wikipedia. I have put some reading suggestions on your talk page. Regarding references the easy route is to insert < ref >[ at the start of the reference, then insert the url, then insert the title of the article, then insert the date and finally insert ]< /ref >. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Cyril Newall
Hi. I stumbled across the page you created. The caption to the photo says his rank in the photo was ACM but I'm sure I count 4 strips above the broad stripe, making him Marshal of the RAF? Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I have amended the caption. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI re Patrick Palmer
[2] All division numbers above 10 disappeared after 1968. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Noted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Infobox Header
Hi, You recently reverted the addition of all the parameters in the infobox header for Chris Harper. Given that those changes - ugly as they were - appear to be as per the instructions in the template, I've started a discussion here to try and establish a consensus. Antrim Kate (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Kate - Good move to open up the debate. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. When you recently edited Alan West, Baron West of Spithead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commodore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Costain Group
Hi, I noticed you removed my links to the official Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn pages for Costain Group, marking them as (linkspam)? Can you please explain - they are all official links
- The Wikipolicy can be found at WP:LINKSPAM. Basically links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Dormskirk, I recently got List of field marshals of the British Army to FL, and I'm looking for something else to get my teeth into. I once harboured ambitions of taking Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom) to FL, but I haven't been able to find any sources to expand the prose with a bit about what the CGS does and the history of the position. I don't suppose you know of nay good books or other sources? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the post of CGS was created in direct response to the Esher Report. I don't have any relevant books myself but there are a few books mentioned at the foot of the wikipedia article on that report. Good luck! Dormskirk (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'll look into them and see if I can get my hands on them if they're useful. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Prisons
In answer to your questions, no they weren't but there was already a mixture and so I was standardising the articles. Secondly, yes I intend to continue. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I agree that standardisation is good. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations
|
100000 Edits | |
| Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! |
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
| This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award. |
```Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Fully sourced
The Wikipedia article entitled SIS building says that those firing the rocket were never caught. Perhaps you would like to give details of the trial of the firing party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.17 (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Say, tell us the name of the Court, date, sentences, names of defendants and the name of the Judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.2.17 (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am slightly confused. I cannot see any mention in the SIS building article that those firing the rocket were never caught. Anyway how would I know the name of the Court, date, sentences, names of defendants and the name of the Judge? Whether they were caught or not the facts need to be sourced. Dormskirk (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article SIS Building says "unapprehended forces". This was put up by TenthEagle on 20/9/2011. It was one of two edits he made on that day to the same article. If anyone was caught for such a dramatic crime, there would be world-wide publicity for the trial. I am 92.26.2.17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfgh123123 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I now see the point you are making. Referring to the Secret Intelligence Service article, I would not have a problem if you wanted to use the BBC article "'Rocket' theory over MI6 blast" as your source for your comment that no one has been prosecuted for the attack to date. You just need to ensure your edits are properly sourced (with footnotes) as required by WP:SOURCE.Dormskirk (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article SIS Building says "unapprehended forces". This was put up by TenthEagle on 20/9/2011. It was one of two edits he made on that day to the same article. If anyone was caught for such a dramatic crime, there would be world-wide publicity for the trial. I am 92.26.2.17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfgh123123 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
General Palmes
Dormskirk, I have noticed the improvements you have made to wiki pages for various military figures. I wonder If you could help improve the following wiki Francis Palmes. I am new to this, so have little experience. Would be so grateful for your expertise. Cheers, Steve patterson 123 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have added a bit. I hope it helps. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Holloway Bros
Thanks for your note about the Rolt book. As I have gained more experience of WP I am sure you are right about referencing. The difficulty is that I could not see any way around doing so except sentence by sentence, or even by phrase. I still cannot think of an alternative, so it will take a while. Ironically, the referencing will not in itself help others without a copy of the book. It was distributed to employees (my uncle got his as a craftsman in one of their subsidiary companies) and presumably it was sent to clients and others around the industry. But not many have found their way into libraries and it only rarely turns up on the second-hand market. I contributed to the article mainly as an easy way of sharing some of the information in the book but I probably ought to contact a book digitisation project (or even scan it myself, though technically it is still copyright, presumably held by a successor company). If there is anything that particularly interests you I am happy to help. --AJHingston (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving this thought. This is always the problem with wiki articles. I am quite concerned that the article will get tagged as needing improvements to the referencing (there are only four references on the whole page at present). One easier solution might be to add references at the end of each paragraph with the range of pages from Rolt - just a suggestion. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I have inserted references for the history section - the rest is mainly lists of contracts.Bebington (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Brilliant job. Trivial point - you have referenced it to Rolfe - do you mean Rolt? Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
OOps! - duly corrected.Bebington (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia page 'HMS RELENTLESS (H85)'
I am disappointed that you took it upon yourself to remove my contribution to the HMS RELENTLESS (H85) entry without prior discussion.
The alleged unsourced information was taken directly from the reference I attributed it to ie.
SERVICE HISTORIES of ROYAL NAVY WARSHIPS in WORLD WAR 2 by Lt Cdr Geoffrey B Mason RN (Rtd) (c) 2003
Which, I notice you have left as a reference...
I am an ex-serving member of the Royal Navy - on HMS RELENTLESS and HMS AURORA - and am a member of the HMS RELENTLESS ASSOCIATION where I am doing extensive research for the Association's website. To this end, I consider myself to be amply qualified to contribute to the RELENTLESS Wikipedia page(s).
I also notice you have deleted the majority of my contribution to the HMS AURORA (F10) page. I don’t believe you were part of the crew of AURORA, nor do I believe you have read the Ship’s Logs pertaining to the period of my input (to which I referred and which you have left in) so I am puzzled as to where you have taken 'verified information' to challenge my entry? Especially as this entails deleting my input whilst leaving other unverified (in MY opinion) information untouched.
I acknowledge, and am impressed by, the huge amount of editing you have done on Wikipedia and accept that as a new contributor I may have strayed from guidelines. However, in seemingly setting yourself up as a moderator and editor of Wikipedia, I would have thought that the role entailed helping and aiding contributors rather than just deleting their material.
Wikipedia says "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."
Wikipedia: Citing Sources says... “Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.”
I am happy to discuss any challenges you may have to my contributions. Deleting my entries hardly constitutes a challenge..... I would be grateful therefore, if you would have the decency to discuss any of my input with me before having the temerity to delete it.
Regards Samat73 (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Samat73
- Hi - I am sorry you were offended. The great thing about wikipedia is that each fact in each article is referenced to a page number in an original source (typically the page number of a book) and that each piece of information e.g. the name of the builder of the ship is linked using wikilinks to other articles (in this case Fairfield Shipbuilders). This is all set out in WP:SOURCE and WP:LINK. In this case you seem to have simply pasted in a large amount of text without any attempt to do this. Some of us have put in the effort over many years and I would encourage you to give it a try. It is very rewarding. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Ideal Homes
Dormskirk
Thank you for setting up a page for Ideal Homes. The name is a bit of a problem. The business was incorporated in 1929 as New Ideal Homesteads and the holding company for the flotation in 1934 was Ideal Building and Land Development Company, with NIH remaining the main operating company until 1967. When it was acquired by Trafalgar House in 1967 it was shortened to Ideal Homes. I saw that you had taken the heading “Ideal Building Corporation” from the Glasgow Herald but I think they had just made a mistake.
I think that if anyone was searching for the company they would be looking for Ideal Homes so in an “ideal” world that should be the heading we use. I know that there is a US company of that name but is there a way it can be done – I know other subjects have more than one entry of the same name .
Regards
Bebington (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - One option would be to to move the existing "Ideal Homes" to "Ideal Homes (American housebuilder)". We could then move "Ideal Building Corporation" to "Ideal Homes (UK housebuilder)". The page freed up as "Ideal Homes" could then be a disambiguation page linking to both "Ideal Homes (American housebuilder)" and "Ideal Homes (UK housebuilder)". What do you think? Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that would be "ideal" - can you do it?
Regards Bebington (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - Now done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your relentless work on these articles! Does your interest in military history limit itself to that of the British? I ask as we could realy do with a list of Gibraltar's previous Governors, i.e. Spanish (see Diego de Salinas) and Moorish governors... Would you be interested/willing? Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 19:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. I am pretty committed to working on British military articles at the moment and I am not really familiar with the subject matter of Spanish and Moorish governors. Sorry! Dormskirk (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for the prompt reply! Should you want a break from biographies, check out the GibraltarpediA project - plenty of military history to be written there. I'm some work on Fortifications of Gibraltar at the moment. --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 20:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
McCarthy & Stone
Dormskirk
Hello
Would you like to look at the latest edits for McCarthy & Stone. Apart from being largley unnecessary, they seem designed to sanitise the Company, as if the changes were made by an employee. I note that he has already been warned on User talk:91.206.176.219.
For instance, changing all references from sheltered housing to retirement housing. This is just wrong - they are warden assisted sheltered blocks and the source I used [DIctionary] makes that clear.
The financial comments have been toned down -"substantial losses" is changed to "losses"' "significant financial Reorganisation" changed to "financial reorganisation" - given that it was rescued twice by the banks, the stronger wording does not seem unreasonable. "Since the Company suffered in the housing crash" was removed.
I accept that extant companies need updating but most of the changes seem either unnecessary or plain wrong. There is no explanation of why he made the changes or sources to justify them.
I could just click undo but I think it better if you deal with it.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi- I have moved the results to the infobox and deleted the appointment of the CEO which is not a historical event. As regards the use of the terminology "retirement housing" while I agree with you that the change to "retirement housing" was unnecessary I find it difficult to insist on removing the wording "retirement housing" as it conveys the meaning and is the terminology used by the company. Sorry! Dormskirk (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Dormskirk
Thank you for your reply - I must have missed it and then I have been away. Perhaps I can return to the matter. Sheltered housing is very specific: it is the provision of housing for a class of dependent occupants with the inclusion of an on-site warden. (Wikipedia has an article on sheltered housing). Retirement housing is a more general term and covers non-wardened housing as well. It seems to me that just because the Company likes to sanitise its publicity, there is no reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. My terminology was sourced; the alterations were not sourced.
My description of the financial position was fully sourced; the alterations were not sourced.
I find it difficult to see how the replacement of sourced material with unsourced material can be ignored.
Regards
Bebington (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I have now reverted the text to show the position as it was before. However I have updated the infobox to include the financial results for the year ended 31 August 2012 and the appointment of the new CEO (appointed October 2012). I am not sure whether we still need the results for the year ended 31 August 2011 in the main text and suggest that those (older) figures be deleted. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have only just seen the changes - the M & S ones don't seem to have come through to my watch list. Have moved on to banks now, first Grindlays and then Bank of Liverpool - enormous scope!
RegardsBebington (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello again
There is clearly another attempt to sanitise McCarthy & Stone along the lines that you reverted earlier. I could go through it point by point but the comments would be similar to the ones I made last time. I assume it is someone close to the company. If it is going to develop into an editing wrangle I think it is better dealt with by you.
REgards Bebington (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I have restored the use of "sheltered housing" and toned down a bit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Help editing Tate & Lyle page
Hi,
I notice that you have updated the Tate & Lyle page on Wikipedia in the past, and I am just wondering if you would be able to help with a change that needs to be made.
Currently our page is displaying the old logo. This needs to be updated, as we no longer have the line and diamond below the logo. This has been mentioned on the page talk previously, however no one has been able to help.
The new logo can be found on our website, or I can supply it to you.
Please advise if you would be able to help with this issue.
Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattse (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
FTSE 100 companies
Thanks for all your great work on FTSE 100 company articles. I've been starting articles for current FTSE 100 Chief Executives without articles, but am encountering some resistance. Business is still seriously under-represented here, and I'm surprised at the opposition to it. Edwardx (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Best of luck to you with your new project. Dormskirk (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Doing the job properly is always appreciated by those of us who care about that sort of thing! Edwardx (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Using gulabin.com
Since you use the sources from the above mentioned website alot, I should tell you that it's both unreliable, incomplete, and uninformed. Take Bridgeman, for example:
- He was Flag Captain in the Mediterranean, not Chief of Staff (a different position not established till later).
- He was Flag Captain at Portsmouth, not Chief of Staff (a title not used until the First World War).
- He took command of Drake in January, 1903, not January, 1902.
There are numerous instances where he's missed out captains because he hasn't got the right Navy List, and he clearly doesn't understand most of the titles he's looking at. His standard of accuracy can be adjudged by "First Lord of the Admiralty and Chief of the Naval Staff" I think, which fortunately you haven't used as a citation in Bridgeman's article.
Incidentally Bridgeman's flag as Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, first flew in Majestic before being broken in Dreadnought nearly a month later. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Simon - Many thanks for pointing out these errors. I will amend the Bridgeman article and use gulabin.com with care. Thanks again. Dormskirk (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Signing
Hello,
I forgot to sign off a major text insertion - is there any way of replacing the anonymous numbers with my user name?
The entry was Parr's Bank dec 4th 15.08
Regards Bebington (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - Not that I am aware of - but I would not worry about it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings!
Moonraker (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
George Henage Dundas
Hi Domskirk, Frequently there are citations in linked articles. Frequently, when I was working on some RN vessel, I would copy the info of his appointment, or his vessel's actions, into the article on him. However, I did not copy over the citations. I recommend you check the links to the vessels. There you will frequently find citations to the London Gazette, or to Winfield's book. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Many thanks for that. I will look in both places. As long as you don't mind me hacking the article around a bit. Much appreciated. Dormskirk (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Peter Duffell
Hi Dormskirk. I support your decision to rename the page for the armed forces Peter Duffell. Your nomenclature is much better. On the other hand wikipedia frowns on disambiguation pages where only two links exist. The film director appears to be the primary topic; an overwhelming majority of news articles in google news are about him. I've added a hatnote link to the armed forces Peter Duffell on the film director's page. Thanks for your help. - Fanthrillers (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sunday Times
There is no prohibition on subscription-only references, so I've reverted this edit. Please do no remove material with such citations in future; though you are, of course, welcome to add additional or alternative references; or to tag the refences with {{Subscription required}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I was unable to find additional or alternative references suggesting that Heavey was under pressure to step down: so I am unable to check whether the statements are true or not. I will assume that you have properly checked out the claim. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Interserve
Hi Dormskirk,
I'm interested in improving the Interserve page and made a few edits yesterday, which I noticed you'd trimmed. I'm keen to learn the ways of Wikipedia so wondered if you could share your reasoning, behind your changes, with me?
I believe that in some instances it was due to a lack of third party sourcing for verification, but would note that the company website announcements I used are also official notifications to the LSE, so would assume they can be relied upon as primary source material given the need for propriety in this kind of official announcement?
I'm keen to get things right, so look forward to receiving your insights.
Thanks,
Doggoneone
- No problem. The main point is that you should use independent sources so official notifications to the LSE would not be satisfactory as they are issued by the company. Material from national newspapers is fine. Please see WP:SOURCE and WP:ADVERT for detailed guidance. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Domkirk,
Please excuse me if this is not the correct manner to respond. Thanks for the guidance. I've carried out some further work on Interserve today and would welcome your thoughts, when and if you have time.
Regards, Doggoneone.
- No problem; I have tidied it up a bit - I think it is fine now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk,
Thanks for your message on my recent Interserve edits, as you know I'm new here so I appreciate your insights which help me to find my feet. Regarding your comment on the work I did on the Operations section, I'm guessing it's a fine line, at times, between advertising (which I'm keen to avoid) and reflecting the product or service that a company provides. I can see that it does come across as sounding like advertising copy and indeed was sourced from my research on the Company website, so I will have a think about how best to avoid that trap while retaining an informative and referenced piece.
You will also have noticed that I introduced a section on an OFT investigation that found against Interserve. It also found against many other construction companies, some of whom have Wikipedia entries. From memory: Kier, Balfour Beatty, Henry Boot, Willmott Dixon, etc. I was intending to replicate this piece in the entries for the other companies affected.
I'm currently engaged in looking into the involvement of Interserve's predecessor company 'Tilbury' in the Dunkirk evacuation during WW2, I can reasonably see that it happened, but I'm now trying to track down good authoritative source references. I think it will make an interesting addition to the History section.
One last thing which is procedural in terms of these conversations. Am I correct to respond to your message here on your 'talk' page or, should I have done so on my 'talk' page under your post?
Thanks and best wishes, Doggoneone (talk)
- Hi - Thanks for your reply. Re operations it is always best to avoid replicating anything from the company website so you do fall foul of WP:ADVERT. I was quite impressed by the FT.com comment "The Company's services include support services, construction, consulting and private finance initiative." Remember you should be independently sourcing everything per WP:SOURCE. Re the OFT investigation I would only mention this in the articles for (say) the top two offenders - otherwise you will probably find yourself involved in an argument as to whether the smaller fines are notable - the offenders over £10m seem to have been Interserve and Kier. Please feel free to respond on either talk page - it may be easier to keep the thread going here now. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I think I've found a good article to use as a template for the operations section of Interserve, in the form of the BAE Systems plc article which has achieved featured status. So I'll re-jig the wording to reflect the style of the BAE piece. I had a quick re-word today, but ran out of time to properly focus on it, so more to do... Interestingly BAE has also given me some further ideas to expand this and articles for corporations. Thanks for your comments regarding the OFT section and 'talk' protocol. Thanks again for your patience in pointing me on the correct path - its all quite addictive. I find myself searching for better quality info that I can use to expand the article. (Doggoneone (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC))
- No problem . I agree that BAE Systems is a really good article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a bit more work to Interserve, I believe I can reference the Operations section via information available through Companies House. My most recent addition is to introduce a section entitled Financial Information (after BAE Systems), though I notice that while the referencing within that article is originated from BAE investor relations it has been retrieved from an archive at http://web.archive.org/web/20100331132234/http://bae-systems-investor-relations-2009.production.investis.com/~/media/Files/B/BAE-Systems-Investor-Relations-2009/PDFs/results-and-reports/results/2010/BAE_2009_Prelim_results.pdf So my question is, should I do similar and if so, how do I go about it? (Doggoneone (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC))
- It looks as if you have done an excellent job of presenting and referencing the financial information section (there is no real alternative to using annual reports for the financials). You still need to reference the operations section: I would use the FT.com article for that. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, if you happen to pass by Interserve you'll notice that I've done quite a bit of further work on it. As I'm quickly learning, it's never finished, always work in progress... and I don't yet find it intuitive to be able to read what becomes the visible article in between the coding/ referencing within the draft text, so for me this means publishing then going back into tweak. I guess the intuition comes with time! The consequence of all this is that the prose needs some attention. Anyway that will get done, but the main point of this 'talk' is to ask for your feedback on my efforts? It's far from perfect, but I'm quite pleased that I've suceeded in producing content that is reasonably referenced with citations. So does it pass muster, do you think? Best Wishes. (Doggoneone (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC))
- It looks really good to me: I think you have done a really good job of it. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I've appreciated your help and insights. I think a major projects section is next, as this will mirror the likes of Kier, Balfour Beatty, etc. Oh and some photographs. After that I suspect I can't go too much further with Interserve for the time being, other than a prose tidy up. (Doggoneone (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC))
Hi Dormskirk, Since I last asked you to look at my edits on Interserve I've tripled the size of the article! So I wondered if you would take another look and critic it for me. I think the piece could do with some more photo's and maybe graphics, as its text heavy, but I'm a bit confused about sources for eligible images to include, so as not to contravene the Wikipedia policy. Do you have any pointers you could provide on sources? I'd also be interested in your opinion as to what further additions I'd need to make for it to be considered for featured status? I plan on introducing a further sub-section within 'Controversies', which I can do in the next day or so. More long term I have an idea for some innovation with the presentation of the 'Previous Names' section. Best Wishes and Regards (Doggoneone (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC))
- It is looking really good - there are just a few bare urls in the references that need converting into normal reference format - otherwise its great. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
John Laing plc
Hi there
Please can you explain what gives you the authortiy to provide information on John Laing plc? We would prefer it if you would refrain from editing the page as your facts are dated and do not reflect the current nature of the company.
Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.130.248.34 (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you look I currently edit and update all FTSE 350 companies as well as many private ones. You comment implies that you work for the company and therefore should not edit the article as you have a conflict of interest. Dormskirk (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I do work for the company so follow your point. However some of the information you are providing is out of date and/or incorrect. What do you suggest I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.130.248.34 (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- The information that already exists seems to be largely referenced so I assume that information is largely correct. There may have been some more recent historical events (since 2008) that are missing. I notice that the current operations section is not referenced and therefore may not be either correct or up to date. I suggest you insert on the article's talk page a concise list of the major errors and ommissions and then we can help. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dormskirk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |