en User talk:Jackyd101 Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jackyd101. 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 5

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown ^e 02:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jacky, I noticed your User Page has changed to say you are leaving Wikipedia. I apologise if Greysteel article is the reason why! We'll find a comprimise on the issue, and don't let me put you off! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Redwall

Jacky,

I noticed that you discussed cleaning up the criticisms section of the Redwall article. After looking at this, I feel it needs some major changes, and quite a bit of the material in that section should be in completely different sections, etc. I saw that you already started cleaning it a bit, but would you mind holding off for a little while and let me take a stab at doing a major edit on the page? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completed this edit. In the process of shortening the criticism section, I created a few new sections. While some of the details of the page layout are still a little sketchy, I think we can provide lots of good information for these new sections. Let me know what you think. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

City of Poros (ship) and MIPT

I noticed that this page refers to two virtually identical pages, could have a quick look as to whether a single version of the page can be used for both references? Circeus 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

the problem is that

The two pages ([1] and [2]) seem to contradict each other but
otherwise have the exact same data.

So it'd be practical if the two bits of information could be traced to a single of these two pages, which would allow the notes to be combined (about that, see WP:FOOTNOTES#Multiple_uses_of_the_same_footnote.)Circeus 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OOOooooOOOhh... So THAT is the trouble. My bad then. It's really not obvious at first glance. Circeus 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article City of Poros, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Shipwrecks

Hey, Shipwrecks are already part of disasters. Man-made/Transportation/Maritime/Shipwrecks. Can you motive why to add Shipwrecks directly to the root? You should come join us at the Disaster management WikiProject! --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think the Atlantic Conveyor should be Category:Shipwrecks of the Falkland Islands|Atlantic Conveyor instead, due she is not in the middle of the atlantic but inside the exclusion zone around the islands. Jor70 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!

Wow, another Jacky-with-a-Y! Good to meet you! JackyR 15:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For improving the coverage of WP on disaster related articles, I award Jackyd101, the original barntar. --Gurubrahma 14:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, somehow ended up at Veligonda train disaster and was impressed by the coverage; then ended up at your user page and had a look at your contribs. You definitely deserve a barnstar and hence the award. If you like it, you may want to display it on your userpage. Looking at your contribs, I also felt that you may be interested in working on creating articles on the 1977 Diviseema cyclone and 1990 Coastal Andhra cyclone - i don't think you will run into trolls there. Keep up the good work. --Gurubrahma 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unterseeboot 1 (1936)

Hi there! Why do you want to delete the article? It seems good. Afonso Silva 17:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok! I just found it strange. No worries. Keep your good work! Afonso Silva 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On July 7, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louis Pergaud, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the contribution! Look forward to many more DYK's from you -- Samir धर्म 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sara's Secrets

I took the time to edit and expand the article on Sara's Secrets. I noticed it was a candidate for speedy deletion as well as it should have been due to it being poorly done with only two lines and bad spelling. So I saved it and it no longer needs to be a candidate to for speedy deletion. Mr. C.C. 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only natural to question the validness of something. But yeah, the article wasn't even properly done. Mr. C.C. 19:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Sullivan's operas

Thanks for your recent category edits. Any interest in joining WP:G&S? If you look at the "To do" list, there are plenty of new articles needed (which your userpage says you prefer to do than editing others' work), and lots of online resources here to get you started. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. No rush, but any time you want to spare to the project will be appreciated (and, I hope, fun for you). -- Ssilvers 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fremantles

I just moved the father to Thomas Fremantle (admiral); I'm going to make Thomas Fremantle and Thomas Francis Fremantle into disambiguation pages, since both father and son shared the same name. (I've already found a mislinked succession box because of the confusion.) Choess 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles John Moore Mansfield

Hello Jacky - Thank you so much for creating the Charles John Moore Mansfield article. He was my great-great-great-great-grandfather, and it's great to see others taking an interest in him! I have been doing my own research into him recently, some of which I have published on my own website here. There are a few differences in the detail and I would be most interested to know if you used other sources additional to Colin White's "Trafalgar Captains"? I also have some information on his family. I wonder if you would like to make contact using the contact page on my site? Regards, Tony 3 November 2006

List of rail accidents

There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be.

The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User.71.75.217.133

I reverted and blocked him for 24 hours. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Crécy Campaign

Hi! Just to let you know, it's generally a bad idea to split out campaignboxes that are already very small into even smaller chunks. There's no real need to split a six-battle template down, and it only makes navigation more confusing; thus, I've merged this template into its parent. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Civil War boxes are very old, and so don't quite meet this guideline; but they're being (slowly) merged together now.

As far as the splitting: the usual way to split a long war is either by theaters or by chronology; but, in both cases, the intent is that campaignboxes will contain all the applicable battles, rather than just a selection of them, as the main purpose of the campaignbox templates is to provide easy navigation among the battles in a war. We can have a single box for the entire HYW that includes every battle, or we can split it up into chunks; but these chunks should not have multiple entries in common with any of their "parent" or "sibling" boxes. (In other words: battles that are listed on a Crécy campaignbox should not be redundantly listed on the Edwardian one.) The correct (potential) structure here would be

HYW (... - Edwardian - ...)
              |
        Edwardian (Sluys - Crecy - Poitiers)
                             |
                       Crecy (Caen – Blanchetaque – Crécy – Calais)

which would be doable, in theory, but would leave us with a bunch of three/four battle campaignboxes, which I don't think is the best approach.

(Restructuring the entire scheme by collapsing the period boxes back together and then branching out campaigns would also be possible, of course, but would require more work.) Kirill Lokshin 17:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a good idea. Thank you for your great work on the articles, incidentally! Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anglo-Scottish battles

You're invited to comment here. Thanks! :-) Kirill Lokshin 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Bramham Moor, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Yomangani ^talk 16:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Walther von Brauchitsch

Hello Jackyd101. According to the history logs on Walther von Brauchitsch, it seems you made a minor change to his page, seeing that Von Brauchitsch's 1946 death date was different to what was categorised as 1948. However, I have now have strong evidence to prove he did in fact, die in 1948, and that the 1946 figure is vandalism. The most likely explanation is that you made a good faith mis-edit, believing the 1946 figure to be correct. But just in case, please go over to Talk:Walther von Brauchitsch to discuss this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oshah (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: Further Review advice

There are a couple of things to do:

Tag the talk pages with {{WPMILHIST}}.
Assess the articles against the B-Class criteria. There's some checklist functionality available through {{WPMILHIST}} that can help here.
Once the article(s) are around a B-Class level, you can submit them to the military history peer review.
Once the articles (mostly) meet the featured article critera, you can submit them to the A-Class review and/or featured article candidates.

As far as excessive reverting is concerned, WP:AN/3RR usually helps if it becomes too extreme.

Hope that helps!

And incidentally: please consider yourself invited to join the Military history WikiProject! :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits and civlity

I notice you suggested Vintagekits had "relentlessly...insulted and degraded". I too have experienced similar behaviour. I would appreicate it if you could provide direct evidence for it though, for any case against him requires it. Logoistic 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Martin McCaughey

Sorry, my comment of anti-IRA bias wasn't directed at you. I was assuming good faith with you especially, as many people aren't aware of the significance of the Peter Taylor series of programmes on Northern Ireland. It's just that there have been many controversial nominations of IRA members recently, and there's a hardcore of vote-stackers who are vociferously anti-IRA. I wasn't including you in that group, my first comment was directed at them only. Their comments generally tend to ignore policies and guidelines, focussing more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry for any confusion. One Night In Hackney 10:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit of a bitter dispute right now. My favourite was this Afd where Astrotrain claimed a Republican source wasn't a reliable source for him being an IRA member, which ignores that the Republican movement would have made far more political mileage by claiming he wasn't a member. I don't think this is going to help matters much either..... One Night In Hackney 11:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be simpler if the IRA project just created articles in a sandbox and included sources before posting them in mainspace, we might see less Afds that way. I've posted about a possible source on the Séamus McElwaine talk page, I wasn't bold enough to reference it straight away as I'm not sure if the claim should be sourced or removed. One Night In Hackney 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination for Eric Gascoigne Robinson

...is on hold. Notes left on the article's talk page. Good work so far. Mocko13 03:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

...has passed. Congrats and good work. - Mocko13 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Source

Having time issues but the following may be useful for the coach bomb article in terms of responsibliy: [3]Weggie 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

uk AND roi sources : [4] Weggie 14:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

T-26 support

Thanks for supporting the featuring of the article, and thanks for all your help to get it there in the A-class review and peer review! JonCatalan 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

IRA Notability

It's somewhat difficult for me to comment on existing articles, except to say I wouldn't personally have created them with the possible exception of Thomas McMahon. McMahon does need expanding if possible, but if there's no information available I don't think an article is merited. If you check the articles I've created - Tommy McKearney and Raymond McCartney - I'd say they are both notable. Taking part in the 1980 hunger strike (the first 7 strikers, not the ones who joined after it started) makes them notable in my opinion, although I've no plans to create articles for the ones who don't have articles as there's just not enough information about them that I can find anyway. With McCartney he's easily notable even without the hunger strike anyway I'd say.

Kevin Coen I'm divided on. The annual commemoration at his grave does tend to assert some level of notability, but then again I'm sure there are quite a number of graveside celebrations as well. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep if he was to be deleted, as he doesn't seem to have done anything significant. If someone has taken part in what was clearly a notable IRA action (ie; has its own article, but some others as well obviously) and there is sufficient source material to construct an article then I'm in favour of inclusion.

I'm not convinced people who get shot are notable enough for articles generally unless the nature of their death was controversial, like for example any of the cases investigated by the Stalker Inquiry.

I'd probably leave Martin Lynch where he is for now, I'd say Army Council member is notable. However that's not a permanent solution, basically there's that many articles in need of improvement/expansion it's difficult to know where to start. If more source material can be found to expand the article then it would be better to keep it, otherwise a merge to somewhere would probably be better obviously.

What it all boils down to in my opinion is whether there's sufficient source material for an article to be written, which is what WP:N always asks for anyway. If there isn't then delete, if there is then keep.

Dunmurry train explosion looks ok to me, but I'm probably not the best person to ask to be honest. I generally try and stay away from the large number of POV disputes, as once you get bogged down in those it takes up too much time that can be spent more constructively. The only thing I'm not keen on is "In Britain the response was outraged", as there's no real source for that. Yes you've got the Churchill quote, but the way it's worded makes it sound as though there was other outrage in addition to what he said. There probably was obviously, but there isn't a source for it. Sound reasonable? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I know you're acting in good faith. It's just that I know some people will try and blame the project for a large number of articles, which we didn't create and also we haven't had time to improve because of the ongoing disruption we're facing.

Another round of AfDs wouldn't bother me that much, as any article that I feel gets improperly deleted (for say lack of content) I can get userfied and improve it from offline source material then take it to DRV, as I've got plenty of books. Plus I think it would be better to have 50 average articles to work on rather than 100 bad ones.

After further reflection I'm still not convinced any reasonable notability critera for IRA Volunteers is easy to come up with, given the wide array of people involved who could be considered notable for a large number of different reasons. I think the only real objective one is reliable source material as I said before, but with a few exceptions. For example Billy Reid (Irish republican) isn't likely to be expanded much beyond its current state, and most people would say all he did was shoot a soldier and get killed himself. However he killed the first British soldier in Ireland since the 1920s, and that was seen as the start of all out war between the Provos and the Brits. That's definitely notable in my opinion.

Joining the project isn't that important in my opinion, as all you're doing is putting your name on a list. If it's going to cause conflict with certain people it's probably hassle you don't need, as you can improve articles without joining still. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits RfC in preparation

Please see my response here to one of your posts. Tyrenius 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All the best with your break

Take it easy and have a good time, whatever your getting up to. regards--Vintagekits 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

List of George Cross recipients

Just a quick question, incase you check your talk page. When you created the above did you check names for articles currently listed in Wikipedia, so the majority of the list needs to be created? I take it that all are notable too, holding the highest medal for gallantry in the UK? Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 1