See this and this you're adding to the Dundonald against the spirit of Mos and wholly wrong in terms of the way titles are used. AllsoulsDay (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. BarretBonden (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not keep linking Marques do Maranhão in the Cochrane article. The link just redirects back to the original page which is extremely annoyoing and renders the whole exercise pointless. If you create an article called Marques do Maranhão, then it would be appropriate. Incidentally I notice that you tend to use links excessively. Links should normally only be made once per article and should go to a root article rather than to a disambiguation page or a page which bears no relatrion to the subject under discussion because the word has more than one meaning. Please read this section of the Manual of Style. Thank you. Dabbler (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again and thank you for your edits to Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. Although not compulsory, please consider using the preview button before you save to prevent clogging up the page history and consider providing an edit summary for your edits. Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Linking may also provide you with some useful information regarding Wikipedia editing guidelines. I hope this is helpful. Happy editing. BarretBonden (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sir Thomas Cochrane, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The tags I added to the article were not intended as criticism they are ways to help improve the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, articles can be written by one person or many but no one editor or group owns any of them. Maintenance tags alert editors to ways they can help improve an article, for example the ((uncat))
tag marks an article as uncategorised, making it more likely that an editor (possibly using the HotCat tool) will come along and add categories. The ((Stub))
tag just indicates that it's a stub class article which most articles are when they are created, some editors spend there time going through Category:Stubs trying to improve and flesh out such articles, the ((norefs))
tag indicates to readers and editors alike that the article could be improved by identifying and adding references that verify the information in the article. If you wish to write something that is - to a point - not as open to peer review and improvement by the community as a whole then I suggest you start articles as a user subpage - this process is explained at Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage? - basicly you create a page with "User:DAFMM/" in front of the intended title (e.g. User:DAFMM/Sandbox). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
N.: Sir John Deed.
The article 'Sir John Deed' was created at 18:09 on the 14th Aprlil 2009. In the three minutes it took for you to critisize the article I can't be expected to create a detailed article. Please give me and others time to build the article.
With compliments.
Hello DAFMM, I would like to explain why I have removed your addition of "Sir" before Cochrane's name at the start of this article. As far as I know, "Sir" is not used to address someone who is also a peer – the letters GCB after his name are adequate. Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage also advises that, "'Sir' is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight". Please do not continue to re-insert "Sir" without discussion first or at least an edit summary explaining your edits – it could be considered poor etiquette otherwise.
I have also noticed that you over-use wikilinks (linking plain words and the same word repeatedly within the same section). You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Linking which states "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section" and advises it is inappropriate to link "items that would be familiar to most readers". I hope this explains why I have removed some of your recent edits. All the best. BarretBonden (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. BarretBonden (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:Red link? 'The redlinked ships on the article George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith were unlinked so that the page could be tiied up. This is encouraged by Wikipedia.' No, that is not supported by any sort of policy on wikipedia, and appears to be only your own personal preference. I would suggest reading through relevant policy articles before deciding what it is that wikipedia does and does not encourage. Benea (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello DFMM. Please do not ignore the advice given to you by other editors. As suggested to you previously by Benea, please read Wikipedia:Red links before removing any more red links from articles. Red links should be removed if they link to articles that will certainly never be created, but a red link should be allowed to remain if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article. BarretBonden (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Also, when starting a new discussion, it should be placed it at the bottom of the page. Thank you! BarretBonden (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.
In Dabbler's edit at 17:47 on 24th April 2009 he says that because he was a Scottish peer. However, the article The Right Honourable on Wikipedia says that any "...barons, viscounts and earls..." in the peerage of the United Kingdom are entitled to it. This means that he was The Right Honourable Thomas Cochrane etc..
With compliments.
DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 25 April, 2009 (UTC).
Thanks. I think though he did have The Right Honourable in front of his name.
With compliments.
DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).
I always sign my edits on talk pages. I don't think I ever have not signed one. Where did you see it? Thanks. With compliments. DAFMM.
Ok then. Thanks. I always sign my posts with a link to my user page. Also, where did you see it? With compliments.DAFMM (talk).
Thanks then. With compliments. DAFMM (talk), 29th April 2009
Posted to: User: Dabbler.
Cochrane actually called himself Sir Thomas Cochrane aswell as Lord Cochrane.
With compliments.
He once qouted: "I, Sir Thomas Cochrane, commonly called Lord Cochrane..." This is in Cochrane The Dauntless by David Cordingly. Also I would be interested to see where it says it is a incorrect usage of his title as I am not to sure whether it is or not.
With compliments.
I refer you to a number of well known peers who also had knighthoods, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, John Jervis, 1st Earl of St. Vincent, Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis, Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig as you may notice, not one of them have either Sir or Rt. Hon in their Wikipedia articles, because that does not follow the correct style. Now the Rt. Hon. part is due to Wikipedia as English peers should have Rt. Hon. though not I think Scottish peersm but the Sir bit is because it is superseded by the senior title of Earl, Viscount or Duke. Dabbler (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps he did, a citation would be nice, but that would be incorrect style and therefore not encyclopedic. If Prince Charles decides to call himself Mr Prince, Wikipedia should make a note of it but should not use it in the lead paragraph as his correct style unless he renounced all of his other titles etc. Dabbler (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
How do you get a titles box for the Peerage of Brazil?
With compliments.
DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).
...because there is none to be found in the public channels. Many have destroyed historical records in an attempt to erase me and my lineage from history, so I have had to take steps to ensure that they shall always fail in their misguided efforts. My power is too great to be undone by such puny demonstrations of lesser people's envy and malice.
And yes, I do love boasting. It's considered a virtue here. Do try it some times—it's very relaxing.
PS: I assume that 81.149.201.240 is you. Please keep in mind that when you leave a message somewhere, it's better to edit/remove it through the same account, or someone might think that vandalism has occurred and act accordingly. Waltham, The Duke of 10:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Posted to: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald talk page.
Should the Navy be spelt with capitals?
With compliments.
DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 9 May, 2009 (UTC).
British people think that Admiral Nelson is the best known sailor who ever served in the Navy.
May I ask what is up with this account? Do you have a legitimate reason to have an alternate account? And, even if you do, why does this account has a name that implies it is affiliated with the University of Oxford? That is probably a violation of Wikipedia's username guidelines. Unless you have a good reason for having this account, it may have to be blocked if it starts making edits. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
N.: UniversityofOxford User.
I have a legitimate claim to the user as nothing says that noone can't contribute with their desired user (University of Oxford for me). However, if it breaks the naming rules then i will have to change it. However, I have decided that I am going to leave the account anyway as I can't see the point of having a 'moribund' account. I was going to use it instead of DAFMM but I think I shall keep DAFMM. The user 'HandyTips' I created to give both me and others a reference to how to use wikipedia. I just thought it might be handy for other users as I often need to use it.
Thanks.
With compliments.
Thanks for being so understanding. I will sought out this issue about my other username probably by closing the account (please can you show me how to do that!). I am considering starting a subpage for HandyTips but for the moment it will stay how it is.
Thanks a lot for all your help.
With compliments.
I add that thing to the page.
Thanks very much.
With compliments.
To: Benea.
Have you heard of Admiral Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald? He was a Napoleonic sailor and rebel politician. After doing some very detailed research (about 6 months worth!) I think that he should have as much respect as The Viscount Nelson. Do you think we could do something to his Wikipedia page to help? What ado you think?
With compliments.
Thanks. I was thinking of just generally expanding the page and maybe giving it some sought of authority.
Thanks again.
With compliments.
Thanks for your explanation. The use of alternative accounts, or sockpuppets are carefully regulated on wikipedia, and can be used in some circumstances. My concern was that you had set up an apparently redundant alternative account to contain your thoughts on the tools and tips to wikipedia. Wikipedia already has numerous help pages and places where the nuances of editing are discussed. If you still wanted to set up an unofficial one of these, setting up a subpage in your userspace would have been the best way to go about it. No one appears to be aware of the existence of User:HandyTips as it has only ever been edited by you, and I can't think how anyone wanting to know about editing wikipedia would know how to find it. User:Rjanag has highlighted a more pressing issue with the account User:UniversityofOxford, which is an apparent violation of the user name policy (specifically 'Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. For example, misleading points of fact, an impression of undue authority, or the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual.') I'd suggest continuing to use only User:DAFMM and only setting up alternative accounts when absolutely necessary, and when you are sure no better alternative exists. I think you would find that this happens only very rarely. On another note, have you thought about archiving talk on your page rather than just deleting it? At the very least you might think about leaving posts on your page for a couple of weeks perhaps, to facilitate discussions. Benea (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have noticed you are continuing to remove all red links from articles despite being asked to stop. Please only remove red links if you believe the linked article will never be created, otherwise leave them in the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Red link - an editing guideline you may find useful. Please also consider using the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up the page history. All the best. BarretBonden (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Who told me to stop? One user told me to stop undoing one redlink. Until you give me a legitimate reason to stop I think the best thing to do is to carry on. What about all of the good reasons for undoing them? If there ever is a page created on the subject then it should be made a link again. But until then. With compliments. DAFMM (talk).
Thanks for finnally making a legitimate claim! Well done! I will read the redlinks article. With compliments. DAFMM (talk).
How do you know that them would never even need to be created? DAFMM (talk)
I noticed you are thinking of starting a page on Arborology. I see there is already a short page on Dendrology which is described as the study of trees and woody plants. I am no expert, but that seems to be the same thing and it was a word I had already heard but I haven't heard of Arborology (though I know of words with the same root such as arborist, arboretum etc). Perhaps you should think of expanding the Dendrology page (and putting a reference to Arborology). If, on the other hand, they are completely separate disciplines, it shows that there is a real need for something to differentiate them! Dabbler (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Dabbler:
N.: Dendrology and Aborology
Dendrology is more about wooded plants as a whole. Arborology is more about trees specifically. There is also dendrochronology which is the subject of aging wooded plants. I didn't know there was one of dendrology so I will expand it.
Thanks a lot. I didn't know!
With compliments.
P. S. I have just started building a page of arborology and have improved the page on dendrology.
Hello I see you are adding a full stop to every image caption you find. I thought you might like to know that, unless the caption is a complete sentence, this is unnecessary. From Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period." Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I was here to say the same thing. Adding periods to captions is not necessary. Also, even if it was necessary, massive minor edits such as this can be handled by a bot. Do not concern yourself with such trivial fixes, it is better to concentrate on improving the quality of articles instead of things such as this. But thanks anyway! --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically a caption (e. g. Brighton Pier) is a sentence and so needs a full stop.
With compliments.
My copy.
Hello, DAFMM. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#FYI_User:DAFMM. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello DAFMM. You've been mentioned at WP:ANI#FYI User:DAFMM. You may wish to add your own comment there. See also a discussion thread at Talk:Boeing_777#A-Class_review about the GA promotion issue. I think that some more steps may be needed before the article can be promoted to A class. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Further to the comments above DAFMM, some users have noticed that your edits can be a little unconventional at times. You could consider Wikipedia:Mentorship, perhaps by going to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area, or by approaching users you have interacted with in the past? If you have an interest in aviation, you could post specific questions at WP:AVIATION about how reviews and other processes work, rather than jumping in at the deep end. This would give you the ability to make the maximum use of your time and edits, and ease your interaction with other users. Benea (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
N.: Mentorship.
I am going to consider it. Thanks a lot.
With compliments.
P. S. Do you know where I can find some information on reviews etc.? I would be very grateful if you could.
Thanks a lot. I am going to have a read and consider my options.
Thanks for all your help over the past few days.
With compliments.
A tag has been placed on Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon))
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
RadioFan,
You posted the proposed deletion tag on the page Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars just a few minutes after I had created the page! If you carry on doing this you will have deleted so many pages before they can even start editing them. Just becuase people like you have a lot of time on your hands others of us do actually try and work! You can't go around complaining about other people who are innocently trying to improve and expand Wikipedia. Here are some other posts from other poor users who you have harassed:
I am working on the page "Mark Batterson" Can you let me finish?
Infoguy2020 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Matt aka infoguy2020
What is wrong with the Annie Mumolo article? -ραncακemisτακe (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
You must have tagged this article within a few minutes of my posting an initial version, which seems a little harsh. I was hoping to return to this tomorrow but in the circumstances thought I had better add to it tonight. Please consider removing the tags. Exclaim (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You are being unfair and a right nusaince.
With compliments.
Reply:
Your user page isn't "very significant" either but administrators don't delete it.
With compliments.
Reply:
Maybe you should give users enough time to actually expand from the title in the future.
P. S. Bugger the article. It is to much hassle to try and start an article because of timewasters like you.
I have moved the article to your userspace for now where you can work on it as much as you like until it is ready for mainspace. Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 18:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
Don't delete it. It has taken me nearly to hours to research and make very efficient.
With compliments.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
Please can you help me add references to this article as I have run out of time!
With compliments (again!).
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
This article lists notable officers that served in the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) in the Royal Navy.
They are ordered by immediate rank (eg. Admiral and Vice Admiral not Vice Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the White) and then by surname.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
Q.:
Who is he? I would really like to know. Did he go to Oxford like Graham Richards?
Also have you heard of the forgotten hero Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald?
Thanks a lot.
With compliments.
Who is he? I would really like to know. Did he go to Oxford like Graham Richards?
Also have you heard of the forgotten hero Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald?
JMcC (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.
Thanks.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.
P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD
In time: this assumption of the marquessate by the earls of Cochrane is really, really surprising for me!!!!!! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not create talk pages consisting solely of your username, even if you do blank them a few minutes later. DS 16:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
DragonflySixtyseven,
I did not say I would stop doing it.
With compliments.
Ok then. Cochrane is very interesting.
Hi DAFMM/Archive,
I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".
Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.
What you can do now:
Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
From Dabbler's talk page.
You seem to have had better luck in reaching DAFMM to be reasonable than I did. He hasn't stopped generating those crap talkpages; I've had to delete three that he created after his conversation with you.
As I said to him, I don't want to impose disciplinary measures on him, but I will if I have to.
(Also... I have no idea where he got this idea that I don't speak English? Is there anything in my word choice that makes it seem like I'm not a native speaker?) DS (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
DragonflySixtyseven,
I did not say I would stop doing it.
With compliments.
Hi.
Sorry to bother you, but for a while now edit counters are failing, i was wondering why is happening and if could be fixed?. Zidane tribal (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
I know about the edit counters and I don't know why they have failed. If you go onto the Luxo contributions it gives you all the edits for all the other Wikimania sites just not English Wikipedia. They have been down for about a week now I would say.
I will try and make a few enquiries.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 5th August 2009.
Hello. I have no wish to enter into an edit war with you so could you please stop inserting a full stop between the letters of GCB and ODM in the Thomas Cochrane article. Post-nominal initials are not usually written like this on Wikipedia. See the many other biographies containing GCB, KCB, OBE, etc. Thanks. Barret (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note that it's easy to tap in four tildes to render the date automatically; and that the "th", "nd", "rd, are now not generally in use, especially on WP. Thanks. Tony (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. DAFMM.
Ok. DAFMM.
As my talk page is on your watchlists what do you think? There are copies on the Clan Cochrane and Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald talk pages.
From article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.
He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.
Thanks.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.
P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD
Posted on: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542.
Could we use this talk page to discuss incidents about ourselves?
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 4th August 2009.
P. S. Posted here on 10th August 2009.
Benea and BarretBonden,
Sorry for the recent edits on my talk page which is on your watchlist. I have been retrieving all of my discussions since I joined Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree that some are very interesting!!!
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.
P. S. I copied this here incase you haven't got it on your watchlist anymore.
Since you are listed under Wikipedians in Dorset, I am hoping you may be interested in saving the article on Dorset. The article was promoted to featured status in 2005, when the standards for FA were not as strict, and therefore it is soon to be reviewed once again. Currently the article, if only for lack of references, would fail to pass the Featured article review.
Your help, however much, will be vital in keeping this important article at FA. At WikiProject Dorset, the WP devoted to Dorset-related articles, we will be helping to organise restoration of the article. As well, there will be discussion on Dorset's talk page. If you know anyone else who may be interested in helping, contact them and/or copy this into their talk page. Please, do get involved!
Kind regards, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know you need to transclude your request onto the main RfA page. See the guide at WP:RFA. Ironholds (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
Ironholds,
Thanks very much for the information. Hopefully I will be successfull! Nowonder you got a Barnstar for kindness!!!
Thanks again.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.
Everyone,
I am applying for administrator status here. Please help me and cast your opinion.
Thanks for your opinion and time.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 13th August 2009.
P. S. 'Cast your opinion' ends on Thursday 20th August 2009.
I have closed your RfA prematurely, as this is not the right time for the community to support you. Don't be disheartened; many of our finest admins have failed their first RfAs. Best of luck for the future. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Symonds reply:
N.: 'DAFMM Administrator'
Very civil considering you just closed it down! What a suprise you got your own day!!! It's like me saying to you don't be to disheartened it isn't my fault even though I admitted to closing down your account!
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.
B. hotep reply:
N.: DAFMM Signature
I don't sign mine with the time, just the date.
Thanks.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.
Hello DAFMM. An editor has made a complaint about you at the edit warring noticeboard. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
N.: 'DAFMM Edit Warring'.
Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.
P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?
The above Edit Warring case has been closed, and here's the result. Many people have told you that your preferred style is now out of favor in Wikipedia. You may be blocked if you continue to revert changes in this article that other editors have made to comply with the Manual of Style, unless you get consensus first. This includes any usage of 'Sir' that does not comport with the WP:MOS, and the insertion of periods in post-nominal initialisms such as OBE. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
The editor in question began adding full stops to initialisms on 3 August [8] and has resisted attempts to remove them ever since [9] [10] [11] [12]. I contacted him on his talk page and two other editors also advised him the edits were against a long standing consensus. It was suggested he create a discussion to establish a new consensus at Manual of Style. He created a discussion but the consensus favoured the omission of full stops from initialisms. He has since failed to engage in dialogue and refuses to heed the advice given to him. It is not the first time he has edit warred on this article: previously he repeatedly and incorrectly added the honorific prefix 'Sir' [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Despite efforts to discuss these edits with him [20], he blanked his talk page and continued to revert until given a 3rr warning [21]. DAFMM gave his views on resolving editing conflicts at his recent reqeust for adminship [22]. Barret (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I personally think this is ridiculous and against change just because the people against my are administrators, and I'm just a expeirenced editor. I am going to therefore take this further. Is there anything against my starting a page against administrators in my userspace - without causing controvesy? People can make there comments and we will see what people say about the powers and contacts of senior editors and administrators.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.
P. S. Where is the result of the complaint?
Posted on the talk page of: User: BarretBonden.
You would make a good barrister - I liked your 'prosecution' (!) against me on my edit warring. It was actually very good.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 15th August 2009.
Just coming across a set of unusual edits from this editor, see difs: where he made an article an A-class, claiming to be Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation and campaign to put periods on non-sentence form captions. Can an editor please check some of the dubious claims made?
I have started a page here seeing how many people beleive that administrators are unjustly using their powers against other editors. Please cast your opinion on it's talk page.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.
From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers
Please put your name down on this page if you think administrators are using there powers against other users. Are they also giving they're friends a lift up? Giving Wikipedia a community of administrator mates who meet in their local every night to discuss who to ruin next? Please discuss these questions on the talk page and cast your opinion and expierences. In my opinion Wikipedia is corrupt.
Thanks.
DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
List:
1. DAFMM (talk), leader, 16th August 2009.
From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers
Please discuss your opinions here.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
Posted to: Tony1.
Thanks for all the research. You should be given one of them 'barnstars'! DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.
I will be offline for about 2 weeks now. Please do not hesitate to leave me messages here and I will try and get back to them as quick as I can. I will hopefully still be able to check it on a friends computer everyday still.
Thanks.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.
Posted to: Tonyjeff.
I will also help you. I won't have much chance for the next two weeks but after that I will have a look. It would definetly help a lot of articles. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.
Posted to: Tony1.
Wrong user! Sorry. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.
Posted to: Tonyjeff (NOT ME!).
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
You may aswell have one now! Thanks again. DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009. |
Posted to: DragonflySixtySeven.
If you had enough sense to realise that I put that to get you back not as a true statement. I placed it there because you didn't use correct grammar (not capitals etc.).
DAFMM (talk), 17th August 2009.
As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm back!!!
DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.
Posted: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.
Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.
How are you doing with it? Now that I am back 'online' I can start to help you a bit more.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.
From: Earl of Dundonald, talk page.
From article Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.
He was not succeded by his son in this title. Most of Brazilian titles were not hereditary, and this is, for sure, one of this case. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
If this is true shouldn't it be Thomas Cochrane etc. Marquess do Maranhao and not Thomas etc. 1st Marquess do Maranhao? What do you think? I will research it.
Thanks.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.
P. S. I have just come accross this on Clan Cochrane article. What do you think? http://www.burkes-peerage.net/familyhomepage.aspx?FID=0&FN=DUNDONALD
Posted: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.
Let us start with the first paragraph:
See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.
The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.
I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.
Et cetera.
Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!
I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Posted to: Toddy1.
If you supposedly don't speak English you wrote that very well.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.
Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Conversation:
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.
Let us start with the first paragraph:
See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.
The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.
I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.
Et cetera.
Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!
I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Please see what I forwarded onto other editors.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Content forwarded:
Posted to: BarretBonden, Dabbler and Benea.
Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Conversation:
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.
Let us start with the first paragraph:
See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.
The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.
I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.
Et cetera.
Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!
I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Posted to: Toddy1.
Stop accusing other editors with edit warring. It is uncivil. It is you who are reverting back to edits nobody agreed upon: edits that concentrate on merely removing referenced material, just because one editor doesn't like a respected author mentioning a fact. Removing a referenced source without discussing it, based on own OR is unacceptable. It is very uncivil then to accuse others of edit warring, while you are essentially doing it - over a tiny issue that has very little relevance to the whole article, and which is only important to some fanatics. Who the heck cares wheater the PoW had 2, 3,4 or 5 guns operating. The point is that it limped away because most of them were not working. Kurfürst (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldn't be as forceful and commanding in your bossiness.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Posted: Titan Beetle, talk page.
How rare are they?
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
Posted: WikiProject: Arthropods, talk page.
How rare are they?
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.
From: BarretBonden.
Thanks for letting me know about the discussion, DAFMM. I have replied on the article's talk page. Barret (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah, I think that mr. Dundonald would not loose his title so easily, but at least you could listen his side of the story so we may try to understand on which basis they claim this title. Perhaps, he has some sort of document – the point is that the question must be as technical as possibel, in order to avoid political answers.
The Brazilian government will not be able to answer it, other than they do not recognize any Imperial title – here we have a terrible lack of historical memory…
I am going to reach some monarchist and genealogist circles here. I know also that the last Brazilian King of Arms did have a notebook (a scrap of a would-be-book) and it is at the Arquivo Nacional (biggest Brazilian library, in Rio de Janeiro). It is very, very difficult to access it, but it's another possibility. Perhaps, mr. Sainty? Let's keep in touch. --Tonyjeff (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
It's all pushing it though!!! I might try The Earl of Dundonald. DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009. P. S. Let's keep in touch anyway!
Please do not copy whole sections from other Talk pages into my Talk page. It is quite unnecessary, first of all as a regular editor I am likely to be watching the page and so can see the edits made to the article Talk page. If you want to draw my attention to the conversation, all you have to do is put a short note on my page asking me to look at the article Talk page.
As I do watch Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, I did see the comments made there about the possible bias over the trial. I have not yet commented because I am trying to find my source books (you will notice that I put in the fact that his grandson was given £40000 in compensation for the false conviction and I sourced it). If and when I find my sources and no one else has added references, then I will do so. In the meantime, your time would be better spent finding references that state that Ellenborough was biassed and that Cochrane was unfairly convicted and adding them to the article to refute the suggestion rather than arguing with people on the Talk page. Dabbler (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
I placed it on your talk page to ask for your advice and so that you had a copy of it there. I thought it would be more convenient for you to be a ble to see it in front of you than having to go off and find the talk page in question. I placed it on your talk page because I wondered what you thought as you are a 'regular editor'.
I reply to the 'arguing' I was only getting my opin ion on the subject accross.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.
BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.
With etc..
DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.
Posted to: Talk page of Toddy1.
BarretBonden seems to have done a good job on rewriting it so the dispute seems to be over with.
With etc..
DAFMM (talk), 31st August 2009.
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:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Roger Davies talk 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.201.240 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Posted to the talk pages of: Earl of Dundonald, Archibald Cochrane, 9th Earl of Dundonald, Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald and Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald.
All,
After some detail research conducted by both myself and mainly Tonyjeff we have discovered that much evidence points to the title not being hereditary. We therefore ask for your advice on the subject as all the articles related to the Earls of Dundonald (etc.) describe it as being hereditary. What do you all think and what information have you got?
Thanks a lot.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.
The lead says Cochrane was kown as "El Diablo" ("the devil") by his enemies in South America. However, this is unsourced and in Brian Vale's book Cochrane in the Pacific: fortune and freedom in Spanish America (page 203) he writes apart from Cochrane's claims there is no evidence he was ever called this. Interestingly, Vale says the only nickname recorded was "el metalico lord" which translates as the "count of cash" or the "lord of bullion". Barret (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted to: Tonyjeff.
Tonyjeff,
I have just posted this. Please see the copy. I don't think it will help much though. However, it does let everyone know.
With etc..
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
Posted to the talk pages of: Earl of Dundonald, Archibald Cochrane, 9th Earl of Dundonald, Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald and Thomas Barnes Cochrane, 11th Earl of Dundonald.
All,
After some detail research conducted by both myself and mainly Tonyjeff we have discovered that much evidence points to the title not being hereditary. We therefore ask for your advice on the subject as all the articles related to the Earls of Dundonald (etc.) describe it as being hereditary. What do you all think and what information have you got?
Thanks a lot.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
Posted: BarretBonden.
I found it on a website about the liberation of South America. However, after searching the internet I can't find it again! I will keep on trying. DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
! Admin Statistics
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
! User Statistics
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
|-
! User Statistics
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
Posted to: X! (Soxred93).
X!,
While using your edit count tool (Soxred93) I came across 'Is X an Admin' and found it very useful. While scanning over the options I found one that I had never heard of before, 'confirmed users'. Is this related to autoconfirmed users?
Thanks very much.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
For when I finally get stopped!!!!
DAFMM (talk), 2nd September 2009.
From: First Sea Lord.
DAFMM (talk), 8th September 2009.
Where does the term First naval Lord come from? Reading the article it refers to the First Sea Lord as the job position title, except in one place. What is the story here as I have never heard of the First Naval Lord until I came to this page. Dabbler (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, talk page.
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.
I checked on First Sea Lord and it seems to be contradictory, it refers to the title as First Sea Lord being used from 1828 but then heads the section listing them up from 1828-1904 i.e. until Jackie Fisher as "First Naval Lord" with no explanation. My apologies for being abrupt in the Edit summary but it puzzles me as I have never heard the term First Naval Lord used anywhere. Dabbler (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion would seem to be more appropriate at Talk:First Sea Lord. I think though that the reference to Thomas John Cochrane being Admiral of the Fleet or First Sea Lord or whatever should be changed as he does not seem to have ever held any of those posts. Dabbler (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record:
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: /Archive 6.
From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers
Please put your name down on this page if you think administrators are using there powers against other users. Are they also giving they're friends a lift up? Giving Wikipedia a community of administrator mates who meet in their local every night to discuss who to ruin next? Please discuss these questions on the talk page and cast your opinion and expierences. In my opinion Wikipedia is corrupt.
Thanks.
DAFMM (talk), 16th August 2009.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: Archive 6.
From: User:DAFMM/AdministratorPowers
Please discuss your opinions here.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: Archive 5.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
From: Archive 5.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
Don't delete it. It has taken me nearly to hours to research and make very efficient.
With compliments.
From: Archive 5.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
Please can you help me add references to this article as I have run out of time!
With compliments (again!).
From: Archive 5.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
This article lists notable officers that served in the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) in the Royal Navy.
They are ordered by immediate rank (eg. Admiral and Vice Admiral not Vice Admiral of the Red and Vice Admiral of the White) and then by surname.
From: Archive 5.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
From: Archive 5.
DAFMM (talk), 5th September 2009.
From: User talk:DAFMM/Notable Royal Navy Officers of the Napoleonic Wars.
From: Francis Drake.
Isn't it ridiculous how everyone is against slavery and yet admire a greedy slave trader like Drake?!!!
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 6th September 2009.
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Posted to: User talk: Roger Davies.
Roger Davies,
Do you need a coordinator or someone to help with vandalism etc.? As you can see from my record (in my talk page's archives) I don't mind making a name for myself or causing temper on both sides! If you need anyone to take the risks I don't mind doing it!
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 8th September 2009.
Moved: Talk: First Sea Lord.
DAFMM (talk), 8th September 2009.
Is this article really a stub? Perhaps not a complete article.... but a stub? Seems worse the article has 3 stub notices Wendell 06:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Posted to: User: Toddy1.
I see you have not responded.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 11th September 2009.
Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.
Just wondering how everything is and if anything has happened on the Marquess front. It doesn't seem to be particulary well documented, does it?!!!!
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 11th September 2009.
Reply:
Thanks and I agree about the general rule. I retrieved this page which contains The Earl of Dundonald's address who I will probabley write to out of interest [23]!!!. It should get to him if we expand it! Thanks. DAFMM (talk), 14th September 2009.
The August 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
Entitled 'Wikibirthday'.
Thanks.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.
I have decided to take a break from Wikipedia. Despite enjoying it I may never come back, it will be one of them things you never bother about!
Will it be noticed?
As they say 'veni, vidi, vici'!!!
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.
Posted to: User: Tonyjeff.
I have decided to take a break from Wikipedia. However, if I come back you will be the first to know! I will keep on searching about the Marquess do Maranhao and will contact your talk page if I find anything.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.
Anyone who takes editting Wikipedia seriously is an idiot with nothing else to do. It is a boy's play game.
With compliments.
DAFMM (talk), 20th September 2009.
14 Wikimedia sites, 3,875 edits.
The September 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The October 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I recently created a village pump proposal and request for bot approval for a bot that automatically updates editcounts for use in userboxes, templates and such. We are currently discussing the benefits and drawbacks of such a bot, as well as various different ways in which it could be implemented. Since you are a member of WikiProject edit counter I thought you may be interested in participating, your input at the discussions would be very welcome. - EdoDodo talk 08:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
If someday you come to read this, just to make you know. Godspeed. --Tonyjeff (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Posted to: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald
My quote page of WikiQuote, that I created when I was once a user,was highly criticised and later by this articles 'chief editiors', users with a life ambition of 'power'. However, your Wikipedia perfection missed out mentioing and the possibility of removing the quotes link in this article!!!!! Deary me! Silly Wikiepdia....
Happy editing, if that's all you can achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.201.240 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
DAFMM, 1st December 2010
Please do not edit my talk page comments as you did here [24]. This is unacceptable and could lead to a block if you continue. Barret (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Barack Obama. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop blanking articles it is vandalism and your editing privileges can be restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You were also warned about the exact same thing yesterday here but you have removed the note from your taslkpage, please explain why you are blanking articles like this? Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
DAFMM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I have recently resumed my interest in Wikipedia editing, this time with a more decorous approach, and wish to begin re-using my old account. I have now started university, reading History and Greats (Classics), and would enjoy expanding further, with the help of my university studies, the articles which I, and I'm sure many other undergraduates, already use on a daily basis, when researching topics in the fields which concern me with my course. I would also particularly like to develop the article on entrepeuneur and steam enthusiast Tony Marchington, whom I have recently researched in great detail, as he was an Honorary Fellow, until his death, at the college in which I now study, St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. I'm sure that as time goes on, there would be many other articles which I would happily wish to contribute to. Naturally, I understand the trust that you place in a user if he is to be unblocked, and I respect this, and so would accept any consequences of my actions, if they were to again become inappropiate. However, I would be grateful of any chance you offer me, and would be pleased to contribute much, both now and in the future, to the foundation. Thanks. DAFMM (talk)
Decline reason:
You concede, in your unblock request of late 2010, that this account is compromised. It cannot become less compromised with the passage of time and cannot be unblocked.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Syrthiss (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
DAFMM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Just two days into taking over my friends account I have been blocked. I do admit that I am by no means a perfect editor. However, I have had experience of Wikipedia before, with several other accounts, with which I have made many worthful contributions, and I do plan to carry on with this, using my knowledge and interest of both history in general and historic vehicles and hope to improve articles concerned on these topics. It is clearly very easy to block me, and most likely to deblock me and so please do deblock me and I agree to be happy with being blocked if I do commit acts of vandalism. I would agree to spend a quantity of edits over a certain period of time in proving that I do want to help WIkipedia. Another chance?
Decline reason:
You may not use another person's account. Ever. Also, you should not be using more than one account, either. Which other accounts have you used? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DAFMM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, but this account has been given to me by my brother as he considered it no longer of use to me. I do have his permission. How about I prove that I am interested in improving Wikipedia. You can watch my every move as I complete a certain amount of useful edits. A chance?
Decline reason:
Accounts may not be shared under any circumstance. By your admission, this account is compromised, and will never be unblocked. We also still need to know what other accounts you have used. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
|
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] 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sample article under construction.
DAFMM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I repeat my request (previously from 9th November 2010) to be unblocked so that I can begin to make contributions to Wikpedia. I do want to contribute to the site and to expand further some of the articles. I quote your 'Blocking Policy' page by saying 'only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block'. I therefore can not understand why I should continue to be blocked, particularly since I have now been blocked since 2nd December 2010. If I were to continue with my harassment of Wikipedia articles, I would merely have started another account on another IP address and continued my wrecklessness. I now, however, want to continue with my original account and make worthful contributions during this coming summer break. The decision to unblock me does, without doubt, deserve mutual respect on my part and I accept that the slightest move out of line and I will be re-blocked, this time without remorse and unable to have a second opportunity. I have just seen the '2nd Chance' template and its recommendations and so I shall provide an oppurtunity of my work later on this evening when I am back home, when I shall post it below here. Please just give me a chance to restore myself and this account. Many thanks for your time and consideration. DAFMM (talk), 15:22 6th June 2012
Decline reason:
You have been told before that this account can not be unblocked, as it was compromised by being used by two different people. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, create a new account all of your own that is not shared with anyone else. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
== [[Article title]] ==
) the copied content but do not save yet;((reflist-talk))
and then save.If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "((Help me|your question here ~~~~))
" to your talk page. Thank you.
Ok. Thanks. Was trying to work it out! DAFMM (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
DAFMM (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, but you don't realise that that was all part of a fanciful story which I was creating, as an example of my previous wrecklessness, when I was first blocked! Please can I just have another chance to prove myself? You can just reblock the account if you believe I am stepping the slightest bit out of line. Would seeing an example of my planned Wikipedia work help? Many thanks. DAFMM (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
See discussion below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me try a different take - from my understanding of how wikipedia licensing works, we all can edit these big documents because if we dig hard enough we can attribute all the edits to the real life editors that made them. Yes, some internet presence named "Syrthiss" or "Boing! said Zebedee" or "DAFMM" made them and not 'William Jennings' or 'Frank Black', but somewhere in the records of Wikipedia there is information that ties "Syrthiss" to me and me alone. In your case, because you took over the account of another person we only have your word (and maybe the onset of the vandalism that caused me to block you) as to when that transfer took place. The attribution of the edits to the real life person gets hazy. As B!sZ said, I don't particularly mind at this point if you started a new account under the terms of CLEANSTART. I can take you at your word that you aren't going to be disruptive, and in my opinion whatever bonus you would have in regaining use of this account (with its edit history) is negated with the burden that it was definitely vandalizing the encyclopedia and was blocked as being compromised. As the blocking admin, I will not unblock you myself but maybe based on this comment either you will indeed accept doing a cleanstart or another admin will IAR and unblock. I'm sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, and I definitely don't want you to feel that we are rubbing your face in past errors or making you think you can't be redeemed. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
A rather eccentric editor