![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A user called 'magicpiano' has deleted the entire tobias smollett 1765 account of the battle on the grounds that it is biased (untrue) and not modern. he has substituted a 2006 published account. this is almost vandalism. the 2 accounts could exist very well side by side and the reader can make is own assessment. however, the user exhibits a confrontational dog-eat-dog reaction which, i believe, is not suitable for an encyclopedia, which requires a more academic, consensual approach. for myself, if i am planning a major edit, i place a statement of intention and an outline of the material on the relevant discussion page and invite comments. please take a look. also at his reactions on the discussion page Miletus ( talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking a look at it and for your commentary/remarks to magicpiano. this needs sensitive treatment. In the original page, the account of the battle was rather 'sparse' and the page was logged as a 'stub' (if my memory is correct). I have the whole hume/smollet history (14 vols)in the 1822 edition and I felt that the paragraphs covering the Frontenac account could be usefully inserted as an addition/alternative (only) to the original text and not as a replacement. This is how I originally headed the inserted paragraphs. Smollet's text is undeniably clear, it is unbiased (I can see no special partiality or point of view) and it is, I believe, useful but only as an alternative, not necessarily definitive, account. Up until this controversy, nobody thought it useful to go further. Smollet himself (QV-WIKI) is a highly accomplished writer. His translation of Cervantes' don Quixote is still the standard text. I think that magicpiano's edit was sweeping, but that is up to him. However, if he is used to university-type coursework then he has to be prepared for questions and to present justifications, as is normal. best wishes Miletus ( talk) 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brian! You may have acted too quickly with this edit at Queen’s University. I only put the {{ Reference necessary}} template on the article less than 24 hours before you deleted the entire section. It is customary to provide wikieditors more time than that to repair items. The {{ Reference necessary}} template tells the reader that the info is challenged and they should thus bear that in mind when reading. I recently received some useful guidance from an administrator here on how long to wait before deleting challenged info. You may want to check it out here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto ( talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done I notice that this particular wikieditor has only
contributed a few edits and that they were months apart. So it may be months before s/he sees the notification on his/her
Talk page. As for area of law, none. Believe it or not, I just wanted the education, learning for its own sake. What an odd duck, eh? —
SpikeToronto (
talk)
02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this section at Queen’s University. You may also wish to join the discussion. I personally believe that the wikieditor who restored the section to the article may be editing against consensus. But, as I did not participate in the earlier discussion, and do not want to read the several thousand words that it grew to, I cannot be sure. You may wish to re-participate because your name is being mentioned as justification in the new discussion for re-inserting the section. I personally think that it cannot be igonored and something about the Henry Report ought to be in the article, but it must be more balanced than it currently stands. My comments on this are at the new discussion. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could take a look at this image File:Alberto A. Nido jpg..jpg of Brigadier General Alberto A. Nido. Notice the badge. Now, during World War II he served at one time or another in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the British Royal Air Force. I was wondering if you know anything about the badge and if we have a proper image of the same in Wikipedia (please let me know in my "talk page"). Thank you, Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. In line citations are the standard for all Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations, essentially because sooner or later all text will be challenged by someone and also because they guard against charges of plagiarism. It also proves the notability of subjects in new articles, which seems to get challenged a lot these days, like in this article. Because any text can be challenged I don't add anything to any articles without in-line citations. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk ( talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Hey RCAF brat from Queen's,
I added that link as a matter of interest, but not having any particular faith in the information in that article.
But you've seen the film then and can vouch for its general veracity?
Cheers,
Varlaam (
talk)
23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (U of T 8T3)
(Note that when I typed "vouch", I typed it using a really strong Canadian "ou" sound.)
Hello Brian, how come you erased 2010 Version of Daredevil. I posted on the website. Am I doing something illegal? By Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 ( talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edit. Can you tell me why? NorthernThunder ( talk) 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've been following the religion edit attempts on the Edmonton article. If you haven't already, see my message to 68.149.170.73 about his/her edits here. Hopefully the cycle of edit/revert/edit/revert will soon cease. Cheers, -- Hwy43 ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on WP:NOTNEWS, I understand your undo. I was not previously aware that this would qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. I simply noticed Kmsiever undid 68.147.31.125's edits based on a rationale of unsourced story and, although I wouldn't normally do this, I volunteered to source it since I was familiar with the story. Cheers, -- Hwy43 ( talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what I call collaborative teamwork! - Ahunt ( talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Brian, I appreciate your edits to the Currie Hall piece. You did a solid job of wikifying it and making it more clear. I`ll likely create pages for some of the other Royal Military College heritage buildings in future, based on a similar template. Victoriaedwards ( talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You made a comment to 139.181.0.34 regarding inappropriate links. Sorry, but it wasn't me. I never post anon. I always use my user ID. Mediasponge ( talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have posted on mundilfari ( talk · contribs) talk page about his deletion of pop culture sections without discussion, attempts to wikify or sufficiently detailed edit summaries. You may be interested that I have brought this to the attention of the admins here and may wish to make comment. I am not making any request for banning / blocking, merely that someone gets him to understand that it is not good practice to continue to delete sections other editors have clearly indicated have at least some intrinsic value. Fenix down ( talk) 10:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Brian Crawford...hi, I am Darren - Zoology PhD with specific study of ursidae and felidae, including an 18 month field study of polar bears.
About you reverting my 'incorrect edits'...READ CAREFULLY.....!!!
The grizzly bear article states "Grizzly bears are North America’s second largest land carnivore, after the polar bear" This is FALSE. It is fairly common knowledge that the Kodiak is not only larger than the grizzly (BOTH are brown bear subspecies), but that it also lives in N. America ! Now the article states "after the polar bear"...correct. This makes it the THIRD largest land carnivore NOT the second. A source for this is right under your nose.....ON WIKIPEDIA !!! The kodiak bear article states that it is THE LARGEST BROWN BEAR subspecies.....now as BOTH are brown bears living in N. America and BOTH are carnivores, and it already stated that the grizzly is smaller than the polar bear, WHERE does that place the grizzly ??? THIRD !!! Of course, this is for your benefit....I wrote elements of the articles on all three bears and all are STILL riddled with inaccuracies throughout !!! I could go on, but take your time in realising the contradictions evident in these articles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurnord ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
my changes were constructive and true, i live here in brockville and everything i wrote is correct and i got from a source aswell, so idk why you removed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.69.119 ( talk) 03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I've added the Order of Battle for April 1943 from Ken Delve's "Sourcebook of the RAF", which has these aircraft with the units that used them. A Bomber Group is more than just the sum of its operational bomber squadrons Dirk P Broer ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not advertising, it’s simply stating the facility existing. The Moose, Bombers, Goldeyes, and the speedway are just as equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If you feel the copy is “promotional” perhaps you could rewrite it to be more informative to end this conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, I left him a message a while ago to discuss at Talk:Winnipeg before continuing, but it doesn't seem like he's willing to listen. I'm heading over to AN3. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I will reword my copy and post when it’s completed without any offensive or hidden endorsements. I am not at all associated with the speedway at all but I do enjoy motor sports and Winnipeg. I feel this is a notable post as the speedway used to be within the city limits in its early beginnings. It’s basically a chunk of Winnipeg’s past…just moved a few minutes south of the city.
rallytron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your response. I recently placed the material on the Royal Canadian Naval College on the Royal Roads Military College. I note that the search term Royal Canadian Naval College leads to the Royal Roads site. I seem to recall that there was a message from an administrator at one point recommending that the 2 sites (Royal Roads & Naval College) be merged into one. I believe that the material from the Royal Canadian Naval College including the photo of the old site in Halifax was moved to Royal Roads. There is a good article by RCNC #247 R.A.F. Montgomery in e-veritas, Royal Military Colleges alumni journal, `Two Naval Colleges in Canada? Setting the Royal Roads record straight` http://everitas.rmcclub.ca/?p=41681. Victoriaedwards ( talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Victoria, I agree that including material about the Royal Canadian Naval College (RCNC) is fine because the RCNC was located at RRMC. This is a perfect place for it, and the material should remain. My problem was all the material describing the history of the Royal Naval College of Canada (RNCC), which is not the same as the RCNC. The RNCC was never located at Royal Roads, which is why I edited it out (the RNCC ceased to exist in 1922). Perhaps you thought you were adding material related to the Royal Canadian Naval College (relevant), when you were actually adding material related to the Royal Naval College of Canada (irrelevant)? If someone moved material related to the RNCC to the RRMC article from somewhere else, it should not have been. -- BC talk to me 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC).
Brian, I have a good source of material on the Royal Naval College of Canada and would be ok with setting up a new article or restore the deletions and expand the existing article. I note, however that the search terms Royal Roads Military College, Royal Naval College of Canada and Royal Canadian Naval College all lead to the same article. I don`t know how to fix this in order to create a new page. Can you help?
The Royal Naval College of Canada (RNCC) (1911 to 1922) was founded in a building at the Halifax dockyard, moved temporarily to HMCS Stone Frigate in Kingston after the Halifax explosion, then moved to a building at the Esquimalt naval dockyard.
I would like to know why you continue to revert my edits to F-35 Lightning II. Your information is obvioulsy extremely incorrect. The F-35 Lighting II is designed to be unmatched in terms of air superiority with the exeption of the F-22 Raptor. The Sukhoi PAK FA while still being tested is considered a match for the F-35 Lighting II and F-22 Raptor because of its general characteristics. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft is not in anyway comparable to the F-35 Lightning II because it isnt even a real aircraft yet. It is still in its design phases, and preduction of the aircraft is not assured. It also has a low level of stealth which will easily be detected by the F-35 Lightning II's highly advanced AESA rader. The aircraft therfore is not comparably to the F-35 Lightning II in any way. PLEASE STOP REVERTING CHANGES WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot7 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Brian,
I believe you referred my posting of our website: www.GR916NewEngland.org as spam and not adding anything to the article. How is it that our group is considered spam?
We are part of the Yankee Division Veterans Association and GR916 was started by Vincent Milano who has written "Normandie Front" and is currently finishing up a second book. There are a couple other reenactment groups listed at the article. What have they contributed that we have not?
Thank you,
Leutnant H. Heinze AKA (Jack Laramie) laramie2002@aol.com ( Leutnant H. Heinze ( talk) 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
Actually there are no links to Queen's University on the Kingston, ON page, only links to the Wikipedia article on Queen's University. I suggest putting the external link back on the page.
There is not one link to Queen's website: queensu.ca
- Young2rice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.67.56 ( talk) 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
~~~~
.Cheers.
BC
talk to me
04:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)The word "Camera" is Arabic in Origin, (قمرة) (Qamara) which means a closed or private room, usually used for the room of the captain of the ship or a plane. The term Obscura is the latin term... You can look it up yourself... check this out... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_camera and also, watch this if you have time... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5icY1dMin4 dra3b ® ( talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I assuming your edit on Eddie Murphy was a result of an edit conflict? -- Stickee (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You were pretty fast adding that level1 warning template. Thank you. ~ Elitropia ( talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We have a good range of categories for Category:Military units and formations of Canada. This formation is a military formation/unit, not a base or facility. Thus it is not a facility - if the article was named Metz Air Base, it would properly fall into that category and could be placed there, but it's about the formation. Now, 'NATO'. You notice that not every unit in every armed service of every NATO country is placed into the NATO units and formations categories. This is because it would make it purposeless. Only multinational formations, eg Allied Command Transformation, or Force Command Heidelberg, are placed in these categories. Thus the proper category is Category:Military units and formations of Canada or possibly 'Military units and formations of the Royal Canadian Air Force.' Does this explain what I did? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Crawford. Please do not revert my changes to Miami University's page. The information there is accurate (I teach there). As far as "neutral pov," the information currently there is all praise. How is that Neutral? Unless you can prove my addition to be inaccurate, leave it alone. I'll re-add it every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehritzaa ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Anon is an editor who's generally positive. He's edited before as User talk:174.3.99.176 and User talk:75.140.159.180 and probably more. You can see his hallmarks: he takes many edits to make often footling changes, and he never gives an edit summary. In the early edits, he was generally improving the article a fair bit; now, he's in the realm of diminishing returns. This bit about date formats is new behaviour but I don't think he's malicious. Vandalism warnings are probably OTT at the moment. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing my CORRECTION to the Robert Rogers Article. I have cited the source that proves the article in its current state is incorrect, and yet it is still being removed as "unconstructive." (Which is, in fact, not a word in the English language) I also happen to speak the language in question and can affirm that you have the correct written form, but it is in the wrong tense. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community driven encyclopedia, I am a member of the aforementioned community, and I am trying to correct the GLARING mistake in this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.84.49 ( talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A user called 'magicpiano' has deleted the entire tobias smollett 1765 account of the battle on the grounds that it is biased (untrue) and not modern. he has substituted a 2006 published account. this is almost vandalism. the 2 accounts could exist very well side by side and the reader can make is own assessment. however, the user exhibits a confrontational dog-eat-dog reaction which, i believe, is not suitable for an encyclopedia, which requires a more academic, consensual approach. for myself, if i am planning a major edit, i place a statement of intention and an outline of the material on the relevant discussion page and invite comments. please take a look. also at his reactions on the discussion page Miletus ( talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking a look at it and for your commentary/remarks to magicpiano. this needs sensitive treatment. In the original page, the account of the battle was rather 'sparse' and the page was logged as a 'stub' (if my memory is correct). I have the whole hume/smollet history (14 vols)in the 1822 edition and I felt that the paragraphs covering the Frontenac account could be usefully inserted as an addition/alternative (only) to the original text and not as a replacement. This is how I originally headed the inserted paragraphs. Smollet's text is undeniably clear, it is unbiased (I can see no special partiality or point of view) and it is, I believe, useful but only as an alternative, not necessarily definitive, account. Up until this controversy, nobody thought it useful to go further. Smollet himself (QV-WIKI) is a highly accomplished writer. His translation of Cervantes' don Quixote is still the standard text. I think that magicpiano's edit was sweeping, but that is up to him. However, if he is used to university-type coursework then he has to be prepared for questions and to present justifications, as is normal. best wishes Miletus ( talk) 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Brian! You may have acted too quickly with this edit at Queen’s University. I only put the {{ Reference necessary}} template on the article less than 24 hours before you deleted the entire section. It is customary to provide wikieditors more time than that to repair items. The {{ Reference necessary}} template tells the reader that the info is challenged and they should thus bear that in mind when reading. I recently received some useful guidance from an administrator here on how long to wait before deleting challenged info. You may want to check it out here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto ( talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Done I notice that this particular wikieditor has only
contributed a few edits and that they were months apart. So it may be months before s/he sees the notification on his/her
Talk page. As for area of law, none. Believe it or not, I just wanted the education, learning for its own sake. What an odd duck, eh? —
SpikeToronto (
talk)
02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this section at Queen’s University. You may also wish to join the discussion. I personally believe that the wikieditor who restored the section to the article may be editing against consensus. But, as I did not participate in the earlier discussion, and do not want to read the several thousand words that it grew to, I cannot be sure. You may wish to re-participate because your name is being mentioned as justification in the new discussion for re-inserting the section. I personally think that it cannot be igonored and something about the Henry Report ought to be in the article, but it must be more balanced than it currently stands. My comments on this are at the new discussion. — SpikeToronto ( talk) 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could take a look at this image File:Alberto A. Nido jpg..jpg of Brigadier General Alberto A. Nido. Notice the badge. Now, during World War II he served at one time or another in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the British Royal Air Force. I was wondering if you know anything about the badge and if we have a proper image of the same in Wikipedia (please let me know in my "talk page"). Thank you, Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. In line citations are the standard for all Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations, essentially because sooner or later all text will be challenged by someone and also because they guard against charges of plagiarism. It also proves the notability of subjects in new articles, which seems to get challenged a lot these days, like in this article. Because any text can be challenged I don't add anything to any articles without in-line citations. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk ( talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Hey RCAF brat from Queen's,
I added that link as a matter of interest, but not having any particular faith in the information in that article.
But you've seen the film then and can vouch for its general veracity?
Cheers,
Varlaam (
talk)
23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (U of T 8T3)
(Note that when I typed "vouch", I typed it using a really strong Canadian "ou" sound.)
Hello Brian, how come you erased 2010 Version of Daredevil. I posted on the website. Am I doing something illegal? By Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 ( talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you reverted my edit. Can you tell me why? NorthernThunder ( talk) 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've been following the religion edit attempts on the Edmonton article. If you haven't already, see my message to 68.149.170.73 about his/her edits here. Hopefully the cycle of edit/revert/edit/revert will soon cease. Cheers, -- Hwy43 ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on WP:NOTNEWS, I understand your undo. I was not previously aware that this would qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. I simply noticed Kmsiever undid 68.147.31.125's edits based on a rationale of unsourced story and, although I wouldn't normally do this, I volunteered to source it since I was familiar with the story. Cheers, -- Hwy43 ( talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what I call collaborative teamwork! - Ahunt ( talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Brian, I appreciate your edits to the Currie Hall piece. You did a solid job of wikifying it and making it more clear. I`ll likely create pages for some of the other Royal Military College heritage buildings in future, based on a similar template. Victoriaedwards ( talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You made a comment to 139.181.0.34 regarding inappropriate links. Sorry, but it wasn't me. I never post anon. I always use my user ID. Mediasponge ( talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you have posted on mundilfari ( talk · contribs) talk page about his deletion of pop culture sections without discussion, attempts to wikify or sufficiently detailed edit summaries. You may be interested that I have brought this to the attention of the admins here and may wish to make comment. I am not making any request for banning / blocking, merely that someone gets him to understand that it is not good practice to continue to delete sections other editors have clearly indicated have at least some intrinsic value. Fenix down ( talk) 10:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Brian Crawford...hi, I am Darren - Zoology PhD with specific study of ursidae and felidae, including an 18 month field study of polar bears.
About you reverting my 'incorrect edits'...READ CAREFULLY.....!!!
The grizzly bear article states "Grizzly bears are North America’s second largest land carnivore, after the polar bear" This is FALSE. It is fairly common knowledge that the Kodiak is not only larger than the grizzly (BOTH are brown bear subspecies), but that it also lives in N. America ! Now the article states "after the polar bear"...correct. This makes it the THIRD largest land carnivore NOT the second. A source for this is right under your nose.....ON WIKIPEDIA !!! The kodiak bear article states that it is THE LARGEST BROWN BEAR subspecies.....now as BOTH are brown bears living in N. America and BOTH are carnivores, and it already stated that the grizzly is smaller than the polar bear, WHERE does that place the grizzly ??? THIRD !!! Of course, this is for your benefit....I wrote elements of the articles on all three bears and all are STILL riddled with inaccuracies throughout !!! I could go on, but take your time in realising the contradictions evident in these articles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurnord ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
my changes were constructive and true, i live here in brockville and everything i wrote is correct and i got from a source aswell, so idk why you removed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.69.119 ( talk) 03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brian, I've added the Order of Battle for April 1943 from Ken Delve's "Sourcebook of the RAF", which has these aircraft with the units that used them. A Bomber Group is more than just the sum of its operational bomber squadrons Dirk P Broer ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not advertising, it’s simply stating the facility existing. The Moose, Bombers, Goldeyes, and the speedway are just as equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If you feel the copy is “promotional” perhaps you could rewrite it to be more informative to end this conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, I left him a message a while ago to discuss at Talk:Winnipeg before continuing, but it doesn't seem like he's willing to listen. I'm heading over to AN3. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I will reword my copy and post when it’s completed without any offensive or hidden endorsements. I am not at all associated with the speedway at all but I do enjoy motor sports and Winnipeg. I feel this is a notable post as the speedway used to be within the city limits in its early beginnings. It’s basically a chunk of Winnipeg’s past…just moved a few minutes south of the city.
rallytron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your response. I recently placed the material on the Royal Canadian Naval College on the Royal Roads Military College. I note that the search term Royal Canadian Naval College leads to the Royal Roads site. I seem to recall that there was a message from an administrator at one point recommending that the 2 sites (Royal Roads & Naval College) be merged into one. I believe that the material from the Royal Canadian Naval College including the photo of the old site in Halifax was moved to Royal Roads. There is a good article by RCNC #247 R.A.F. Montgomery in e-veritas, Royal Military Colleges alumni journal, `Two Naval Colleges in Canada? Setting the Royal Roads record straight` http://everitas.rmcclub.ca/?p=41681. Victoriaedwards ( talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Victoria, I agree that including material about the Royal Canadian Naval College (RCNC) is fine because the RCNC was located at RRMC. This is a perfect place for it, and the material should remain. My problem was all the material describing the history of the Royal Naval College of Canada (RNCC), which is not the same as the RCNC. The RNCC was never located at Royal Roads, which is why I edited it out (the RNCC ceased to exist in 1922). Perhaps you thought you were adding material related to the Royal Canadian Naval College (relevant), when you were actually adding material related to the Royal Naval College of Canada (irrelevant)? If someone moved material related to the RNCC to the RRMC article from somewhere else, it should not have been. -- BC talk to me 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC).
Brian, I have a good source of material on the Royal Naval College of Canada and would be ok with setting up a new article or restore the deletions and expand the existing article. I note, however that the search terms Royal Roads Military College, Royal Naval College of Canada and Royal Canadian Naval College all lead to the same article. I don`t know how to fix this in order to create a new page. Can you help?
The Royal Naval College of Canada (RNCC) (1911 to 1922) was founded in a building at the Halifax dockyard, moved temporarily to HMCS Stone Frigate in Kingston after the Halifax explosion, then moved to a building at the Esquimalt naval dockyard.
I would like to know why you continue to revert my edits to F-35 Lightning II. Your information is obvioulsy extremely incorrect. The F-35 Lighting II is designed to be unmatched in terms of air superiority with the exeption of the F-22 Raptor. The Sukhoi PAK FA while still being tested is considered a match for the F-35 Lighting II and F-22 Raptor because of its general characteristics. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft is not in anyway comparable to the F-35 Lightning II because it isnt even a real aircraft yet. It is still in its design phases, and preduction of the aircraft is not assured. It also has a low level of stealth which will easily be detected by the F-35 Lightning II's highly advanced AESA rader. The aircraft therfore is not comparably to the F-35 Lightning II in any way. PLEASE STOP REVERTING CHANGES WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot7 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Brian,
I believe you referred my posting of our website: www.GR916NewEngland.org as spam and not adding anything to the article. How is it that our group is considered spam?
We are part of the Yankee Division Veterans Association and GR916 was started by Vincent Milano who has written "Normandie Front" and is currently finishing up a second book. There are a couple other reenactment groups listed at the article. What have they contributed that we have not?
Thank you,
Leutnant H. Heinze AKA (Jack Laramie) laramie2002@aol.com ( Leutnant H. Heinze ( talk) 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC))
Actually there are no links to Queen's University on the Kingston, ON page, only links to the Wikipedia article on Queen's University. I suggest putting the external link back on the page.
There is not one link to Queen's website: queensu.ca
- Young2rice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.67.56 ( talk) 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
~~~~
.Cheers.
BC
talk to me
04:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)The word "Camera" is Arabic in Origin, (قمرة) (Qamara) which means a closed or private room, usually used for the room of the captain of the ship or a plane. The term Obscura is the latin term... You can look it up yourself... check this out... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_camera and also, watch this if you have time... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5icY1dMin4 dra3b ® ( talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I assuming your edit on Eddie Murphy was a result of an edit conflict? -- Stickee (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You were pretty fast adding that level1 warning template. Thank you. ~ Elitropia ( talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
We have a good range of categories for Category:Military units and formations of Canada. This formation is a military formation/unit, not a base or facility. Thus it is not a facility - if the article was named Metz Air Base, it would properly fall into that category and could be placed there, but it's about the formation. Now, 'NATO'. You notice that not every unit in every armed service of every NATO country is placed into the NATO units and formations categories. This is because it would make it purposeless. Only multinational formations, eg Allied Command Transformation, or Force Command Heidelberg, are placed in these categories. Thus the proper category is Category:Military units and formations of Canada or possibly 'Military units and formations of the Royal Canadian Air Force.' Does this explain what I did? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Crawford. Please do not revert my changes to Miami University's page. The information there is accurate (I teach there). As far as "neutral pov," the information currently there is all praise. How is that Neutral? Unless you can prove my addition to be inaccurate, leave it alone. I'll re-add it every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehritzaa ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Anon is an editor who's generally positive. He's edited before as User talk:174.3.99.176 and User talk:75.140.159.180 and probably more. You can see his hallmarks: he takes many edits to make often footling changes, and he never gives an edit summary. In the early edits, he was generally improving the article a fair bit; now, he's in the realm of diminishing returns. This bit about date formats is new behaviour but I don't think he's malicious. Vandalism warnings are probably OTT at the moment. Nunquam Dormio ( talk) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from removing my CORRECTION to the Robert Rogers Article. I have cited the source that proves the article in its current state is incorrect, and yet it is still being removed as "unconstructive." (Which is, in fact, not a word in the English language) I also happen to speak the language in question and can affirm that you have the correct written form, but it is in the wrong tense. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community driven encyclopedia, I am a member of the aforementioned community, and I am trying to correct the GLARING mistake in this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.84.49 ( talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |