User talk:Ranger Steve/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Medcab
I've opened a case at Medcab regarding the dispute on Falklands War, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/09 January 2012/Falklands War. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
Hello again. This is just a quick message to let you know that the Mediation Cabal case you are involved in is now under way. A set of ground rules has been laid out, awaiting approval of all parties involved. This is the last time I shall send a general talk page message regarding the case (unless I have specific reason to do so) - therefore, if you have not already, I recommend that you add the case page to your watchlist. If you have any problems with the mediation process, or if you are unable to participate, please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you for your co-operation. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:12, 14 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] 00:11, 16 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] 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Note
I am sorry to hear of your problems, however, continuing to reduce matters to a personal level and painting me as the devil incarnate is growing a little wearing. Please stop it. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- And where do I do that? My comment is fair representation of the discussion. You might not like it, but your fancy for exaggeration (devil incarnate, bullying, strong arm tactics) doesn't suddenly make it some sort of offensive strewn litany of abuse against you. Ranger Steve Talk 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah right, so everything is my fault is it, much as my 7 year old blames everything on her brother. As I pointed out at MedCab I'm not the one pointing figures - you are. And its getting boring, so stop it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Once again, I'm not finger pointing, I'm describing the discussion. Once again you are exaggerating - I haven't said everything is your fault, you have. Yes, it is boring. Tell you what, if you can find any diffs where I insult you, bully you, paint you as the devil incarnate, blame you for everything or otherwise offend you, please provide them. If you can define exactly why they are insulting to you (or paint you as the devil) and make me understand how/why, I'll apologise. At the same time, perhaps you'd like to find the diffs where I'm edit warring. Ranger Steve Talk 20:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah right, so everything is my fault is it, much as my 7 year old blames everything on her brother. As I pointed out at MedCab I'm not the one pointing figures - you are. And its getting boring, so stop it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Bold
You being bold, did you have permission to edit this article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I hope Argentina doesn't mind! Ranger Steve Talk 10:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Falklands War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defence (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) 10:59, 6 February 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] 10:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear Ranger Steve/Archive 5: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, ItsZippy, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Airborne Museum
Hello Ranger Steve,
First of all thank you for your review of the article. It is very helpful. I am a historian working in the museum itself. Seeing that we are a history museum with a scientifical approach it was my goal to be as objective as possible. The old page was very outdated en therefore incorrect so I’ve made these changes to make the page up to date and as correct as possible, what I felt was very important for the museum and the historical correctness posted on wikipedia. In the process I’ve tried to avoid subjective quotes. In this small article I preferred the bibliography above footnotes seeing that there would be too many footnotes for such a small text. Again thank you for your help.
Greetings, Airbornemuseum Airbornemuseum (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've included the footnotes Airbornemuseum (talk) 14:05, 12 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] 02:34, 24 March 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] 00:35, 1 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] 15:16, 25 May 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] 19:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding that caption, a complete sentence must have a subject and predicate, which the previous version did not, and your current first sentence also does not. The length of the sentence is irrelevant; if there is no clear subject and predicate, it is not a complete sentence. See: [1]. But also, your most recent edit creates a caption that I would say is far too long. Most of that info should be in the text. Please see MOS:CAPTION (where it says a caption should be succinct) and perhaps discuss on the talk page. Tx. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you feel I have made the caption worse by increasing it by a whopping three whole words (whilst making it less complex and easier to understand at the same time), please by all means present the two versions on the talk page to see what people prefer. Bear in mind that there is already a longer caption further down the article though. I agree it's a bit of information, but I'm sure that if I'd reduced it, I'd be called up by someone for deleting information. Feel free to put it into the text - referenced of course, because there's nothing about red paint or the Prinz Adelbert in the article at the moment.
- You might also want to consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, which makes clear the need to relate the relevance of the image to the article. Again, had I deleted anything, it wouldn't do that. Ranger Steve Talk 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree you made it easier to understand, and the period business (though the rules should be obeyed) was trivial. But this caption has too much information in it. We don't need to delete it from the article if the referencing is not problematic, we can send most of it to the main body. Obviously captions need to be reliably sourced just as much as any other part of the article. Rumiton (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have two options - you can either shorten the caption (which is quite easily done thus: The iceberg thought to have been hit by Titanic, photographed from the liner Prinz Adelbert on the morning of 15 April 1912. The iceberg was reported to have a streak of red paint from a ship's hull along its waterline.) or shorten it even more brutally and shove the extra information into the article (if it helps, this information is also recorded in Ballard, p. 197, although he doesn't mention the chief steward). I don't really mind which you do, but I didn't create an excessively long caption, I merely re-ordered what was there already. Ranger Steve Talk 09:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't take this stuff personally, we are all just trying to improve the article. I think shifting the info into the text is the way to go, then a short caption connecting it up. I think I recall something about the chief steward in Lord's book; when I have time I'll look it up. Incidentally, considering that red paint is underwater hull paint which wouldn't be visible, and paint doesn't stick to melting ice anyway, I personally find the whole story quite dubious. But no problem, if it is sourced it can stay in the article. Rumiton (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally. I think that if info gets moved into the text, the option is there to discuss the iceberg a little bit more. Given that there is also File:Theberg.jpg, and both images link to a pretty reliable looking website, I think a separate paragraph could go in the 'Meeting with the iceberg' section, opening with something along the lines of "There is speculation as to the exact size and shape of the iceberg that Titanic hit. Some sources..." (or something along those lines), and include both berg images alongside it (smaller and in the same frame, a la Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Co-aligning. I think the info is certainly pertinent to the article.
- I'd had a similar thought on the paint. Ironically neither Ballard or the website say that, so it's hard to reference! Ranger Steve Talk 09:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Walter Lord, A Night to Remember shows the picture on page 168, 1976 edition, with the caption: "The iceberg that sank the Titanic? Photographed near the scene on 15 April from the German ship Prinz Adelbert. Observers noted a scar of red paint along the berg's base." I can't see much point in mentioning "speculation as to the exact size and shape..." as it is obvious that nobody could get a good look in the dark, and the berg could never be positively identified later. I think we should just stick with Lord's words, which are fairly neutral and unspeculative. Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't take this stuff personally, we are all just trying to improve the article. I think shifting the info into the text is the way to go, then a short caption connecting it up. I think I recall something about the chief steward in Lord's book; when I have time I'll look it up. Incidentally, considering that red paint is underwater hull paint which wouldn't be visible, and paint doesn't stick to melting ice anyway, I personally find the whole story quite dubious. But no problem, if it is sourced it can stay in the article. Rumiton (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have two options - you can either shorten the caption (which is quite easily done thus: The iceberg thought to have been hit by Titanic, photographed from the liner Prinz Adelbert on the morning of 15 April 1912. The iceberg was reported to have a streak of red paint from a ship's hull along its waterline.) or shorten it even more brutally and shove the extra information into the article (if it helps, this information is also recorded in Ballard, p. 197, although he doesn't mention the chief steward). I don't really mind which you do, but I didn't create an excessively long caption, I merely re-ordered what was there already. Ranger Steve Talk 09:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree you made it easier to understand, and the period business (though the rules should be obeyed) was trivial. But this caption has too much information in it. We don't need to delete it from the article if the referencing is not problematic, we can send most of it to the main body. Obviously captions need to be reliably sourced just as much as any other part of the article. Rumiton (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Nicosia
Welcome; I must have been half-asleep. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:12, 16 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] 09:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This article looks ready for mainspace. Is there a reason it's still in your sandbox instead of live? If not, would you object to me moving it to article space? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't mind I'd like to finish it in my own time. There's a lot of material to add to Operation Pegasus and a bit more for later life. Ranger Steve Talk 20:52, 16 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] 01:10, 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) 09:45, 10 September 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] 20:57, 5 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) 02:57, 24 October 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) 02:07, 29 November 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) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)