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.

Template:Newbie-biting has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[ Username Needed} 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

An amendment request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar; the committee declines to reimpose discretionary sanctions in this topic area at ARCA. For the Arbitration Committee, Mini apolis 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Would you allow me to remove the sub heading "This RFC is flawed" from the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar? Your point is clearly made elsewhere and the discussion flows just fine without it. As it is, other participants may not know where to add their comments. Regards, Scolaire ( talk) 13:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No thank you, it would destroy the narrative of the RFC and I believe is against WP:TPG. W C M _email 13:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's only against TPG if I do it without your permission, which is why I asked your permission. I will respect your decision. Scolaire ( talk) 13:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. You reverted my religion edit on the Falkland Islands page, which is fair enough edits aren't sacred. However you say the reference supports it, but I can find no mention in the reference to those religions, or in fact any religion, in the cited reference. The original reference at least did support the 66% Christian and 2% other, but the reference and document linked left has no mention of any religion. Can you point out what I've missed? Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone in the past has updated the census results, unfortunately replacing the original cite with a summary from a later census that didn't include details on religion. I went back and rescued the original cite (2006), which reports on the Bahai in the Falklands and added two more. All of it is now cited. W C M _email 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually not sure it's better now. The claim that these 2% were represented in the 2012 census isn't being supported by these references. All those about the other faiths are not census references, and are all older than the census. Additionally the cite for the Baha'i actually contradicts the text. The text is saying 2% were other, including Baha'i, however the Baha'i cite states that they represent 2.98% on their own. Cites for the 2006 census aren't helpful when the text states that all this is according to the 2012 census (and the Baha'i numbers there do not mesh with the Adherent's reference anyway, being much lower.) Since the text is making claims about the 2012 census, the other references provided are not valid for this claim, especially since they all pre-date the census. If the claim is about the 2012 census, then the 2012 census is the only valid source for it (or references discussing the 2012 census), and the 2012 census was mum on this data. And the remainder of the paragraph, the 66% and all other points are now completely uncited. Do you see what I'm saying? Canterbury Tail talk 20:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, you're really overthinking this. The 2012 census isn't mum on this data, the summary substituted for the 2006 full census didn't include the data and so left the data uncited. The only purpose of those cites is to note the minority faiths include Baha'i, Buddhist and Islam, it doesn't attempt to put numbers to it. Do a google search the Baha'i in the Falklands have a newsletter, it's an WP:SPS so not suitable for a source on wikipedia but should satisfy you it's a healthy minority still. W C M _email 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

I thought that you might find it interesting to know that (according to Wikipedia:Time Between Edits), your edit to 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands was the 890,000,000th edit to Wikipedia. Clovermoss ( talk) 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for letting me know. W C M _email 18:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

[1]. A properly formatted report on the user, now that they're at 4RR. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies, editing from my tablet. W C M _email 16:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

Precious

Five years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

Hi, I don't think that editor is HarveyCarter - the behaviour looks a bit different. A checkuser might find otherwise though. Nick-D ( talk) 10:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Nick. W C M _email 10:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Hi WCM. I just edited the Falkland Islands article based on the info you provided about the Sovereignty Dispute. I agree that the balance of information was not adequate. Could you please give it a look and (if needed) add any other clarifications or information that I may have missed. Thanks! By the way, I hope you're safe and well during these pandemic.-- MarshalN20 ^✉ 🕊 18:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Marshal, you have it completely wrong. The settlers were asked to stay, all but 2 and their wives did. They have descendants in the islands to this day. W C M _email 22:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the mistake. Do you think we should add more information about it? I think Roger indicated that there may be other parts of the article where wording needs to be more precise; please let me know if you might know what other parts need more clarity.-- MarshalN20 ^✉ 🕊 01:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Hi, you don't happen to know if this is on-line anywhere do you? I seem to remember having seen it at some point, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere. I'm trying to improve the Spanish articles on the events of 1833-1834 at the mo, and I thought you were likely to have an idea, if anyone does.

-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 07:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not online as far as I'm aware, Cawkell refers to it and I have a copy somewhere, along with my notes of the archive reference. I'll dig it out. W C M _email 10:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Helby's is online though in Wikisource - here. Somewhere I also have Pinedo's list from his trial. W C M _email 10:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My memory plays tricks, it's not in Cawkell. The reference is PRO Adm 1/2276, with another copy in PRO FO 6 500, fol. 195.

18 Male inhabitants are listed (additional notes are my own):

William Dixon
Jean Simon
Antonio Rivero
Jose Luna
Santigo Lopez (I believe that may have been a mis-spelling)
Manuel Coronel
Piedro Firmyn
Luciano Flores
Manuel Galon
Philip Phillipes
Lataro St Juan
Fautino Martinez
Piedro Allecio
Pascual Diez
Benjamin Pearson
Ant Werner (I believe that may have been a mis-spelling and refers to Anton Wagner)
William Jones
Ch Kusserler - this is probably Carl Kussler who appears on the 1837 census

Not listed by Onlsow were:

Antonina Roxa
Gregoria Madrid
Carmelita + Child
Jose Simon - Son of Jean Simon
2 x servants (names unknown)

There is a sort of copy of Pinedo's list in Fitte, La Aggresion Norteamericana a las Islas Malvinas but the reference given is incorrect. Fitte omits a fairly crucial detail in that it blurs the distinction between members of the garrison and settlers. W C M _email 10:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a million, that's really useful. I have seen the copy of Helsby's account in the Nautical Journal (I think) which is online, but the list on you link to is different to the one in the first paragraph of Helsby's text (also on wikisource). The one you linked in wikisource states at the top that it is actually Onslow's, but it's different from the list you very kindly typed out here. Do you think two versions of Onslow's list exist, or there is an attribution mistake on wikisource? Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's quite possible the list in Wikisource has been attributed to the wrong author, you'll also find several lists each subtly different; I noted above that there are two versions of Onslow's original list. This is not to say they're wrong but they were made at different points in time. The population was quite dynamic with new people arriving (often deserting from ships) or leaving when they could get passage on another. Manuel Coronel for example first went to the islands in 1826, left in 1827 returning in 1831. A fresh batch of gauchos arrived in March 1833 on the Rapid chartered by Vernet along with Matthew Brisbane and others. Then there is confusion with the different languages, in one settlement of less than 30 people you had French, German, Spanish, English and the Charrua indians who spoke nothing other than their native language. Santiago Lopez is variously recorded as Santigo or St Jago. You can think of it this way, each list is a snapshot in time, with errors introduced by the person who compiled it. W C M _email 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the point you make about language is quite pertinent. The list you copied out here is clearly written by an English speaker, as the errors in spelling are pretty clearly those an English-speaker would make (the spelling of Fermin, dropping the 's' in Faustino). Thanks again for your help. Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

El zapatero Rivero?

Sorry for mithering, I just found this, reading Coan's mentions of Rivero:

Brisbane employed the Spaniard Antook as a shoemaker, and several Mestizos and South American Indians as herdsmen, bullock-hunters, etc. Failing to pay them promptly, from lack of means, as he said, they were angry, and determined to kill him and all his friends and plunder the village. According to the plot agreed on, Antook came to the door of this room one morning while Brisbane was sitting before the stove lighted with a fire of peat, the principal fuel of these islands, and demanded pay. Brisbane refused, and immediately a bullet went through his body. He grabbed for his pistol, in a cupboard on his left, arose to fire, but staggered and fell, when he received a blow upon his head from a cutlass and three stabs from a dirk. He was then dragged to the door, his feet bound with raw-hide rope, and this being attached to the saddle of a horse, he was drawn out into the field, where he was stripped, mutilated, and left unburied. His clerk was also killed with several others at the same time, and the town was sacked, a few Englishmen escaping as before stated.

Were you aware of this? It seems very pertinent to the case. With what you know about the use of primary sources, am I justified in adding something like "However, the American missionary Titus Coan states that Rivero was employed as a shoemaker rather than a gaucho", or would that be OR? Boynamedsue ( talk) 10:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I've heard of Rivero being referred to as Antook before but I doubt he was a shoemaker, Emilio Vernet's diary show him employed as a Gaucho and just about ever secondary cite bar this one. I would tend to suggest this goes down as a fringe view, given the wealth of sources that contradict it. As for non-primary sources - Cawkell in the English language, Caillet-Bois, Destefani, Fitte etc all cite that he was employed as a Gaucho. Even Mario Tesler the one academic that supports the myths surrounding Rivero says the same. That's pretty authorative. W C M _email 11:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow your advice in terms of articles, especially given the weight of secondary sources. I would imagine the reality is that he was a gaucho who occasionally made shoes. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's possible, Gaucho's are known for decorative leather work. W C M _email 15:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Good morning WCM. Per your revert on my edit to Rick Jolly—in fact, we do refer to people just by their surnames. MOS:SURNAME states that "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms.", "Miss", "Mx" (this includes academic or professional prefixes like "Dr.", "Prof.", "Rev.", etc.)". With this in mind, just using "Jolly" in the article would be correct (see also MOS:DOCTOR). I hope this makes sense, and I shall reapply the changes. Please {{ ping}} me if you want to discuss this further! Best wishes, MIDI ( talk) 08:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ MIDI: The link you gave was for a academic honorific but Rick Jolly was a medical doctor (surgeon). In British English it is extremely rude to refer to someone by their surname alone but I see there is a spot of cultural imperialism with our cousins over the pond who've rail-roaded this into the WP:MOS. Yet another reason for my waning interest in anything to do with this project. W C M _email 10:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I interpret the MOS the same way; "Academic and professional titles" doesn't appear to create a distinction between a medical doctor and an individual holding a doctorate (both of whom may use the title Dr.). While I (as a fellow BrE user) certainly wouldn't refer to someone in day-to-day life solely by their surname (I agree that would be rude), my personal opinions have no bearing on the current wording of the WP:MOS. I've had a cursory look at the MOS archives and couldn't find any discussions regarding MOS:SURNAME in these circumstances. Personally I'm happy with the guideline as-is, but if you feel strongly enough to start a discussion on it then I'd gladly get involved. Cheers, MIDI ( talk) 10:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

There was a long discussion back in 2008, where a cabal of largely American editors trampled over British English editors. I really can't summon the energy or will to indulge in a large protracted discussion with people who rarely create content but are prepared to argue endlessly telling people who do how to do it. W C M _email 11:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Hey, Wee Curry Monster. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 07:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

Hello. Can I get some help pease?

How translate the name "Regimiento de Infantería Mecanizado 3" to English? "3rd Mechanized Infantry Regiment, "Mechanized Infantry Regiment 3" or "3 Mechanized Infantry Regiment"?

With regards.-- Malvinero10 ( talk) 00:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

In British English 3rd Mechanised Infantry Regiment. W C M _email 06:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Malvinero10 ( talk) 21:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Greetings, mister. Can I get some help, please? I don't know too much about the 1982 invasion operation. Here goes the question: how many combatants participate in the 2 April confrontation? The problem it's in the es-wiki article (the line starts with: "Al día siguiente aparecieron(...)"​). Sorry about my english.-- Malvinero10 ( talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The normal complement for NP8901 was 44 officers and men, the 2 April invasion happened during a routine handover so in theory there was double the normal amount. However, because of actions on South Georgia HMS Endurance was sent with a party of 22 Royal Marines to deal with that incident, leaving 69 Royal Marines and 10 sailors to defend the Falklands. Some 22-32 men of the FIDF were able to muster in the time available but under orders from the Governor they took no part in the fighting. You can cite the RM strength to the Official Histories ^[1] and Major Normans book ^[2] for both the RM and RN strength. Freedman on p.4 suggests the strength of the FIDF was 23 (the lower number) and 11 hydrographers. I would tend to suggest that Major Norman's book is more reliable for the latter as he was actually there. Hope that helps. W C M _email 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So, the Falklands Police wasn't part of the resistance. Thank you, sir.-- Malvinero10 ( talk) 14:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, British police are not armed. There are specialist firearms officers but in 1982 there were none in the RFIP. W C M _email 17:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here ( talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)