User talk:Dormskirk/Archive 6

Hi, my name is Imogen Harvey, I work in the Communications team at 3i Group plc. I noticed that in the past you’ve made a few edits to update information related to 3i’s portfolio investments.

I was wondering if you would be able to make some factual edits to the list of current investments on the 3i Group Wikipedia page. In accordance with Wikipedia’s COI guidelines, I’m conflicted from making these edits directly.

Please can you remove Agent Provocateur, Element Material Technologies^[1], Foster and Partners^[2] and Mémora Servicios Funerarias^[3] from the list of current investments? 3i Group plc is no longer invested in these companies^[4].

If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to get in touch here or on my talk page.

Best, Imogenharvey3i Imogenharvey3i (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk I have been creating articles on Royal Navy stations based upon Navy List sources under Flag officers in Commission which are presented in a tabular format thus

My primary guidance has been the following articles Records of Stations and Fleets and the description here which states the following During the Second World War the Royal Navy was deployed around the world, divided into various fleets and operating from a number of regional stations, also known as commands. The most significant were:

• the Home Fleet based at various stations in the UK
• the Mediterranean Fleet based in Alexandria, Egypt
• the Eastern Fleet based at both the East Indies Station and China Station
• the Pacific Fleet based in Sydney, Australia (this fleet was not formed until November 1944)
• the South Atlantic and Africa Station
• the America and West Indies Station
• the Western Approaches Station (base for ships deployed in the Battle of the Atlantic)

These stations and the various other operational headquarters and units of the Royal Navy kept records, sometimes in the form of daily diaries or summaries of events.

One of my web based secondary sources has been they way User:Simon Harley one of the creators of the dreadnoughtproject.org a reliable secondary source there they list the stations first the same as the Navy Lists see here Plymouth Station then he lists the various Commander-in-Chiefs and when you click on a C-in-C you get their official title e.g. Admiral, Name, Commander in Chief, Plymouth Station. Now when I have been creating these articles I have made it clear that it is a Naval station a geographic command that is administered and or commanded by e.g. Another editor keeps insisting and moving articles to say I have to just list the Flag Officer nothing else my view is why then do we have previous navy lists and the national archives specifically detailing the structure of the Royal Navy consisting of geographic naval stations or fleets an example I created Iceland (C) station sourced and cited and added a naval station of the British Royal Navy that was administered by the Flag Officer Commanding, Iceland (C) the other editor moved the page and removed any reference of naval station to Flag Officer Commanding, Iceland (C).They have removed categories for example Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches edit summary given not a station well clearly the National Archives seems to think so. Moved Cape of Good Hope and Africa Station to Commander-in-Chief, Africa and removed category royal navy stations comment not a station again the national archives Admiralty: Africa Station seems to think it is. In addition if I have added category Admiralty to the naval station per how the NA categorizes stations they are removed as not Admiralty an operational formation. Now I see no big issue in creating station articles like we have already have for China Station, East Indies Station and actually using the term station is consistent with official sources and consistent for readers. I am now at the point where I am not going to create any more pages because they only get moved. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Because this is driving me insane a bit I have emailed the both national archives and naval historical branch Portsmouth for clarification many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 07:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi - The closest analogy elsewhere that I can think of are hospital articles where an editor has moved a lot of articles about UK hospitals so that they become articles about NHS Trusts. e.g. Darent Valley Hospital got moved to Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust. Personally I think both articles should exist i.e. details about the building should appear in the hospital article and details about the management of that hospital should appear in the NHS Trust article. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

So for example an article about the Naval Station but don't list only reference the Flag Officer commanding linked to a separate article about the appointment e.g. Commander-in-Chief, Naval Station name.--Navops47 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works. Dormskirk (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay have done what you suggested the appointment/post Flag Officer Commanding, Iceland (C) commanding the Iceland (C) station would you mind giving them both a quick look over to make sure I have not missed anything many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Both articles could do with a few more references. There should be one at least at the end of each paragraph. But otherwise the articles look fine. Dormskirk (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Daniellysons.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Davidcampbell.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Felix Ready.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Georgeerskine.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Walterkirke.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Vondonop.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Rogercwilson.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Jamessandilands.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Hastingsanderson.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Ivormaxse.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Robertwhigham.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Leslierundle.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Rhaining.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(there is a lot of unsourced material here: please read WP:CITE carefully before editing fully sourced articles. thanks.)

This material was sourced, as mentioned as a reference, from a facsimile version of the 1879 edition of Celer et Audax, A Sketch of the Services of the Fifth Battalion, Sixtieth Regiment ( Rifles ) by Major-General Gibbes Rigaud, Late Lieu.-Colonel 60th Royal Rifles. Pages 273 to 277.

Should you wish to verify it please refer to the last pages of : https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lt5vCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&lpg=PT4&dq=celer+et+audax&source=bl&ots=W-CEABZsga&sig=kBZC9I4HvOWFxHnZUTC-VC_0hIc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi55q38g6feAhUQ2qQKHRXXDcI4ChDoATAGegQIABAB#v=onepage&q=celer%20et%20audax&f=false

Richard Tennant (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Richard TennantRichard Tennant (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good Source. Why don't you use in line citations then as required by WP:CITE? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now added the citations for you. I assume that all the new material was from the same source. Dormskirk (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire

Is it notable or unecessary? Should be be deleted?

Sammartinlai (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.Sammartinlai (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Is List of British Army Regiments (1800) worthy of an entry? Or should it go to AfD? Thoughts?

Thanks

Sammartinlai (talk) 06:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I tend to take a pretty tough view on verifiability. If it is not properly sourced, it should be deleted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll try an AfD on this? Sammartinlai (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and let's see what happens. Dormskirk (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dormskirk,

I’m getting in touch because of your interest in FTSE 100 entries, and your past work on this entry.

My name is Marshall Manson, and I work for communications advisory firm Brunswick. I’m acting today on behalf of Ferguson PLC, a FTSE 100 company. As you’ll see on my profile page, I’m a big fan of Wikipedia and a also signatory of the commitment from comms firms like ours not to edit Wikipedia. (I also apologise in advance for any errors in syntax in the material that follows. Because I don't edit, I confess that some aspects of Wiki markdown remain a mystery.)

I was hoping you might be willing to consider and perhaps address some factual issues that we’ve noticed in the Ferguson entry. I’ve listen them here, and included citations in case that’s helpful.

1. Due to a number of divestitures, the opening descriptor of Ferguson as ‘a Jersey-registered multinational building materials distribution company with its head office in Zug, Switzerland’ is no longer accurate. It’s more accurate to say that ‘Ferguson plc is a Jersey-registered multinational plumbing and heating products distributor with its head office in Zug, Switzerland.’

These stories confirm the sale of the building materials components of the business: Sale of Build Center. Sale of French business. Sale of Nordics business. And the FT uses the descriptor we’ve suggested in its article here.

2. In the second para, the first sentence is no longer accurate, as the Pipe Centre and Plumb & Parts Centre brands have been scrapped. We suggest this bit of copy instead:

‘Ferguson PLC has trading brands including: Ferguson Enterprises (in the US), Wolseley (in the UK and Canada) and William Wilson (also in the UK). The company announced a rebranding of its Pipe and Climate Centre and Plumb & Parts Centre in the UK brands as Wolseley in 2016 which is now complete.’

These two articles verify the changes.

3. In the third para, the second sentence about the name change isn’t correct as it stands. We suggest changing that sentence to read has follows:

‘Wolseley plc changed its name to Ferguson plc in 2017 the primacy of its US operations. The Company remains listed on the London Stock Exchange, registered in Jersey, and tax-resident in Zug, Switzerland. The company continues to trade as Wolseley in the UK and Canada.’

You can find an FT article detailing the name change here.

4. The number of employees and countries that Ferguson covers is inaccurate. We suggest that instead 47,000 employees and 25 countries, the correct figures are now ’35,000 employees in three regions’.

I’m afraid there’s no good third-party citation for this, but this is from the company’s own information, and you can see the figures here.

5. In the Operations section, the sub-section explaining Ferguson’s geographic structure is no longer accurate. We suggest that these three descriptors would be more accurate:

• UK (trading as Wolseley UK)
• US (trading as Ferguson Enterprises) including Puerto Rico, Mexico and the Caribbean
• Canada (trading as Wolseley Canada) and Central Europe (trading as Wasco in the Netherlands)

Again, we lack a good third-party citation for this, but it is detailed here and in the company’s annual report. And this Times story confirms the structure.

6. In the same section, the list of countries where Ferguson operates is out of date. We suggest simply eliminating the list. The three points above cover the same ground in our view.

7. The next section, ‘Wolseley UK’ detailing operations in the UK is also a bit out of date. Some of the brands in the list have been scrapped and the overall approach simplified. So we suggest renaming the section ‘UK’ and replacing the current list with the following copy:

‘In the UK, Ferguson trades as Wolseley and is based in Leamington Spa in Warwickshire. Following a restructuring of the UK business announced in 2016, which resulted in most of the UK trading brands being renamed and brought under the single ‘Wolseley’ brand, the company now trades in the UK only as Wolseley, soak.com and William Wilson. Soak.com, formerly known as Bath Empire, is a UK online bathroom retailer, headquartered in Nuneaton, UK. William Wilson is supplier of plumbing, heating and bathroom products in Scotland.’

Sources for this section include this Guardian story, this FT report, and this article from a trade publication.

8. The next section, ‘Wolseley US’ is also inaccurate. There has never been a ‘Wolseley US’ business. We suggest changing the section name to simply ‘U.S.’ or US Operations and changing the copy to read 'Ferguson plc operates in the US as Ferguson Enterprises.’

9. Similarly, the next section, ‘Wolseley Canada’ would more accurately be called ‘Canada and Central Europe’ with the following copy: ‘Ferguson plc operates in Canada as Wolseley Canada, where it is organised into the following businesses: Plumbing, Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (HVAC/R), Waterworks and Industrial (Pipe, Valves and Fittings).’

This Times story (mentioned earlier) confirms Ferguson’s structure.

10. Regarding the section headed ‘DT Group,’ Ferguson has sold Stark Group, previously DT Group, so we suggest deleting this section. This FT article covers the sale of Stark Group. And this Wikipedia entry the renaming of DT Group to Stark Group.

I very much appreciate your considering this request. I hope it comes across clearly that we offer these only as suggestions in the spirit of making the entry more accurate and, in one or two cases, a bit clearer. Obviously, please let me know if you have any questions.Tmmanson (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

All done. I think. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything. Dormskirk (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. Tmmanson (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you help me fix the table here on Defence Council of the United Kingdom.

Using this latest update https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about/our-governance.

I can't seem to get the alignment right.

Many Thanks.

Sammartinlai (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Done, I think. Dormskirk (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Made some edits, still not familiar with tables.Sammartinlai (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank You.Sammartinlai (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

See my section in the Talk Page of British Army. You are right and wrong to revert but no harm done.

Sammartinlai (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, see my follow up post on that subject, addressed to both of you. - wolf 12:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Seen. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

But, the actual reason I came here was to ask you, Dormskirk, another question about that same section of the infobox, "Commanders". Do you have any idea why an IP user recently removed the ranks and post-noms of the Commanding Generals and the ASM? His edit summary stated; "Per MOS:INSTITUTIONS, MOS:BIO, and MOS:WORDSASWORDS". Is there something in among those WP:links, policy-or-guideline-wise, that states ranks and post-noms are not permitted in military infoboxes? I took an (admittedly quick) look about, but didn't see anything. I then checked the pages for their brothers; Royal Navy and Royal Marines, as well as their 1^st cousins (west); Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, Canadian Army, and their other 1^st cousins (east); Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Royal New Zealand Navy, New Zealand Army and their 2^nd cousins; USN, USMC, US Army & USAF and all of them have ranks preceding their Commanders names and post-noms where applicable. So I'm not sure why this guy removed them from the British Army page. Any ideas? (I'm hoping you'll know, otherwise I suppose I'll have to try and ask him... Cheers - wolf 12:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Y

Hi - I believe ranks should be included but do not have a view on whether post-nominals should be included or not. I am not aware of any good reason to remove them once they are there. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Seems we're on the same page. Since the rank/post-nom info has been restored, I think I'll just let it be and keep an eye on it. If that IP user, or any user tries to remove it again from that article, or any other article, then I'll pursue it. Take care - wolf 13:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi again Dormskirk, I just have one more quick question, that seems to keep getting lost in all the... noise. Is there any other sources supporting Paton as the new Army Sgt. Maj., other than the twittr post? Thanks - wolf 17:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Added note; with comments like this, I'm sure you understand why I'm seeking clarification on this. Thanks again - wolf 18:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen any other sources on the topic. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in light of Sammartinlai's comments that twittr posts are unreliable, and the confusion on Paton's talk page about him being a Captain, but also an enlisted man, do you think we should hold off listing him as the Army Sergeant Major (ASM) until these questions are addressed and better sourcing is found? Thanks again - wolf 05:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No one ever referes to the position as ASM as I repeated so many times. Hold off all othere changes as well then. Tell that to User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa who made and expanded the page. Sammartinlai (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To add on, It is Twitter, not twttr unless that is a new English spelling. See the Talk. I just said via the official, verified account that WO1 Gavin Paton was appointed. Glenn Haughton was announced as SEAC on Gov.uk. He naturally cannot hold both positions at the same time unless you tell me all US Command Sergeant Majors can hold two or more Sergeant Major (spelled out) post simultaneously. Again, ask Gaia Octavia Agrippa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammartinlai (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is Dormskirk's talk page, not yours, and this is a discussion I was having with them, not you. So how about allowing Dormskirk to reply, mmkay?
I already told you before, and then again just above, I informally use "ASM" instead of writing out "Army Sergeant Major" every time. It's just on talk pages (and not even yours), so unless you see me add "ASM" to an article without a supporting ref, let it go already. (And who cares if I'm missing a vowel in Twittr? Seriously, get over it FFS).
I don't see why you need to constantly insert yourself into discussions where you are neither needed nor wanted, and disrupt them with your constant hostile, combative and off-topic posts. Jeez... - wolf 16:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I was pinged, so I thought I'd join the party. As per WP:Twitter, it can be used as a source "in articles about themselves or their activities". is a verified and official Twitter account; it is no different to announcing things own their own website. I wouldn't, however, use unverified twitter accounts. As for the new Army Sergeant Major being commissioned a captain but serving as a warrant officer, I'm assuming its to do with up or out and pay/benefits. Its more an administrative anomaly than something we should be worried about. There may or may not be any other official announcement: he's not top brass. It could be that he will simply be referred to as the ASM in the future. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Gaia. It certainly helps clear up some of the confusion caused by the conflicting, and often off-topic ramblings about the ASM, (among other things) of the previous commenter. Though I wished he had pinged you on the appropriate article talk page instead of here. But perhaps now we can stop filling up Dormskirk's talk page and leave them in peace. Cheers - wolf 18:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for joining the conversation late. It is useful to know that the British Army twitter account is verified. Dormskirk (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding out he's a LE Captain! That's a great edit.

Have a great weekend.

Sammartinlai (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a good idea to take Spire Healthcare and the like out of the category Category:Private hospitals in the United Kingdom. You are of course quite right that the articles are about the companies, but I dont think we will be seeing articles about their individual hospitals, and without them the category is a bit misleading. Perhaps we should rename the category? Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to draw a distinction between the organisations that manage the facilities and the hospitals themselves. I think it is good to have categories on both i.e. one article for the private healthcare providers and one category for the hospitals. It just makes it easier for the reader. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Surely the right place for Spire Healthcare and the like is Category:Health care companies of the United Kingdom? Dormskirk (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well yes, but very few of the other healthcare companies actually run hospitals.Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do take that point. But surely it is the hospitals themselves which should be categorized as Category:Private hospitals in the United Kingdom. Dormskirk (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

In principle. But I dont think there is enough information about them individually.Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It is only the bigger ones which will warrant separate articles. Dormskirk (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to join? Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I probably should! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been pretty dead for years, but you seem to be getting stuck in. Maybe its a place we can discuss some of the difficulties. It's easy to write about individual trusts and hospitals, but the bigger issues are more problematic.Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added my name to the list. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My father was a thoracic surgeon at Hawkmoor. Rosser Gruffydd 09:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Air Vice-Marshal Ian Duguid OBE No. 11 Group RAF? I'm too lazy to.

Sammartinlai (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I was about to revert your edit to Milton Keynes University Hospital but couldn't think of a convincing reason to show that your version is any worse than the useless text you replaced. My problem is that your District General Hospital just redirects to Hospital and is uninformative. Hospital#District Hospital is mainly about California, there is nothing about England & Wales. So now that you have let the dogs out, it's down to you to catch them! We need some text that defines a DGH in the NHS. You just volunteered" :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. "District General" is a defined term in the template which redirects to hospital. And I agree that "hospital" is uninformative! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Too late! You [have been] volunteered already to make it informative! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Air Vice-Marshal M Wigston, I just updated RAF Air Command and he's going to be future CAS. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-military-chiefs-appointed

Sammartinlai (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Previously done: see Michael Wigston. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sammartinlai (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_of_Wales%27s_Royal_Regiment#Recruitment

Do you think this is better?

BlueD954 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC) (formerly SL)

Yes, much better. Dormskirk (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.BlueD954 (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to know more so I wish to clarify: Do they recruit "mostly from" region X, Y Z or "recruit from" X, Y Z? For specific regiments like the Yorkshire, Lancaster, PWRR etc they recruit only from specific regions right? And looking at the new, but not fully updated British Army website under infantry , do they specifically say where they recruti from and is it mostly?

Thanks

BlueD954 (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I believe it is "mostly from". The regiments certainly would not turn away willing recruits just because they came from the wrong county! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

But is there a source to say that? BlueD954 (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, please check the QOY, SNIY and Fusiliers, I've edited but you cna change as you deem necessary. Thanks again. BlueD954 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Dormskirk (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @BlueD954: From my experience researching the Lancashire Fusiliers for a project of mine (the Lancashire Fusiliers War Memorial in Bury), I believe the geographical regiments do most of their active recruitment work within their area, but as Dormskirk says I can't imagine they would turn down an applicant from elsewhere (they might have family connection to the area or the regiment/predecessor regiments for example) and most of the older regiments will have moved garrison town with some of the historic reorganisations of the army. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, but again we need a source or they will say your research, however accurate, is original research. But feel free to careful state so on the various regiments but with a source. Tks.BlueD954 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. It should be easy to find a source for the area a regiment recruits from but I've never seen anything about how exclusively they are to their areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Antony Beevor, 'Inside the British Army', 1988 and 1991, covers the recruiting side, and might have some sort of comment. Cannot access my copy at present. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig my copy out in the morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell for your input. You too Dormskirk. BlueD954 (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

But do patrol 1st Battalion Scots Guards not my creation. Thanks.

BlueD954 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have changed it to a redirect. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For all your edits. BlueD954 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Dormskirk (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

3 Regiment RLC

Under structure, the references refer to the unit's facebook website (not edited by me). Is that acceptable or should it be removed and replaced with another reliable source? BlueD954 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - In my opinion, it is not a reliable source. Even if it is published on behalf of an authoritative organisation it is more of a blog and therefore cannot be relied on for accuracy. Dormskirk (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BlueD954 (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it to a redirect but may I alter the redirect to Company_(military_unit)#British_Army which is more relevant? Merry Christmas. BlueD954 (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Dormskirk!! Thank you for all your hard work this year!! Regarding 29th Engineer Brigade (United Kingdom) I did find a minor problem in this edit. I carefully added two deadtree sources, which you appear to have accidentally taken out. I'm going to readd them. Have a great holiday!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - Apologies for that. I agree that those sources look useful. Happy christmas to you too! Dormskirk (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Er, they're useful all right - as soon as I can get back to my copy of one of them there will be a 1984 orbat added. :) Buckshot06 (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Micro Focus. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi - I think you will find that {{Template:New York Stock Exchange}} and {{Template:London Stock Exchange}} were developed for exactly this purpose. The NYSE template is in use on circa 2,200 articles and the LSE template is in use on very large number of articles including all FTSE 100 companies and all articles on FTSE 250 companies. You might also want to read Template:Infobox company. In the "traded_as" bit it specifically says "use stock ticker templates where possible". Dormskirk (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Erm, @Stesmo:, have you heard the phrase "don't template the regulars"? Dormskirk has been around for over a decade and has made over a quarter of a million edits. A hand-written note or a talk page discussion would have been a much more sensible response than using Twinkle to deliver a templated warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pinging me on Domskirk's behalf, @HJ Mitchell:. I was aware of the essay on whether to template or not, as well as WP:DTTR#AGF. I tend not to research each editor or how many edits they've made before leaving them a message about External Links. Dormskirk, I hope I have not offended you by leaving you a message that wasn't hand-crafted. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - No problem at all. I will leave it to you to restore the ticker templates as you will know which articles you have removed them from. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, per WP:EL, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is *on the person who wants to include an external link*." I cannot justify adding an external link out from an article to check a stock price. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Please ping/notify me to let me know that you've continued the conversation and are addressing me. I'm happy to continue the conversation, I just may not notice the change in my watchlist without the ping/notification. Thanks again! Stesmo (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stesmo: The LSE template provides access to a whole host of extremely useful information, other than share price, including sector, sub-sector, market cap, date of admission etc. You say that "we're not here to make it easier for [the reader] to leave Wikipedia". I disagree - we are here to make life for the reader as easy as possible. But the main point is that the guidance at Template:Infobox company that editors should "use stock ticker templates where possible" was arrived at by consensus and you need to abide by that consensus until and unless that consensus changes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! Please note that WP:EL was also arrived at by consensus and *we all* need to abide by that consensus until that consensus changes! I'm not some rogue editor going around reverting vandalism, removing spam, removing promotional language, reverting unsourced changes and removing extraneous external links because these are all things only *I* think Wikipedia should be free from. These are things that we've realized make for a better encyclopedia and have been arrived at by consensus. Thanks and Happy New Year! Stesmo (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Stesmo: I have no problem with WP:EL but it only provides high level guidance: the detailed guidance is in Template:Infobox company. I note that your attempt to change Template:Infobox company was reverted very quickly by another editor. I am afraid that we will just have to disagree. Dormskirk (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Dormskirk. You're absolutely right! We have consensus on us disagreeing! :D Yep, as part of being WP:BOLD, it's absolutely expected that sometimes I will be reverted when I try to fix something myself instead of waiting for someone else to get around to it. And to not get bothered by it. Someday, I might climb aboard Rocinante and start the process to change the infobox advice to avoid unnecessary conflict between editors. But, today is New Year's Day and there are more fun things to do. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Admirals-Current.pdf

The posts of Chief of Staff Navy Command and ACNS Capability have been sepatated and they are RADM Paul Beatie and RADM Hugh Beard respectively, no longer Robert Magowan.

Up to you whether you want to update.

BlueD954 (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I was adding to Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Navy) mention of a fact alluded to in Admiral (Royal Navy). The source in the latter article is an essay at napoleon-series.org that doesn't cite any particular date or statute by which the Admiral(s) of the Red became a separate rank just under the Admiral(s) of the Fleet but it is beyond dispute that this differentiation did happen and thereafter there were promotions from the one rank to the other. Leaving the article without the statement that this happened is highly misleading. What would be considered an adequate source? LE (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that this change took place in 1805? Where did you get that information from? I accept that it would be a useful addition if you can find any reliable source to support it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going on the statement in Admiral (Royal Navy) though the source it cites merely says a change happened after the Battle of Trafalgar that year. The difficulty is in ascertaining exactly what happened to place into effect a change that most definitely did take place (Act of Parliament or Admiralty policy or what)...I suppose London Gazettes could be scoured to see when the first promotion to AotF happened for someone previously AotR but that would be evidence rather than explanation.LE (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The timing does feel about right but you still need to source it in some way per WP:CITE and WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found some reference to Robert Roddam and William Cornwallis (neither of whom is on the Admiral of the Fleet list with that title being held only by Sir Peter Parker) being Admirals of the Red in 1805...supposedly promoted November 9th but the Gazette of that date has Cornwallis writing a letter dated November 4th with that rank attributed to him.LE (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would not have a problem if you used their promotions as evidence. Dormskirk (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Haven't yet found the earliest promotion TO the rank. I did see a site that quoted admiralty regulations before and after the AotR rank was interpolated but not the specific promulgation of that change in regulations.LE (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. It sounds as if you are pretty close. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a copy of Heathcote's The British Admirals of the Fleet which might help but it's buried in a box following a house move along with most of my general military history books). Let me know if you get desperate enough that it's worth rummaging for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have a copy of Heathcote's book. On page 2. it says "There was no admiral of the red by that title until 1805 when this rank was introduced to give admirals of the white a better chance of promotion than that provided by the single post of admiral of the fleet". Sounds a good source to me. @LE: Over to you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad the book was useful (and glad I didn't have to shift several boxes full of heavy books!). By the way, LE won't have got that ping; it only works if it's in he same edit as the signature. @LE: Like this. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You found it so you link it... I have been busy with the List of Royal Navy admirals.LE (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually I DID find and link the actual Gazette page just now.LE (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well done - I agree that you cannot get better than that. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I note that in your "date format" edit of the 16th you changed the format from the exact format/punctuation used in the DNB quote.LE (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I might have been a bit zealous over that! On reflection it might have been best left as it was. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I also used this as a source https://www.nmrn-portsmouth.org.uk/squadron colours for this page I created Admiral of the red.--Navops47 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk hope your well I have updated the Commanders of the Mediterranean Fleet here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Fleet#Commander-in-Chief,_Mediterranean_Sea they were styled differently notes have been added thought you may be interested in updating the flag officers biography's military appointments I have sourced from 1654 down to 1757 take care.--Navops47 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks see you around.--Navops47 (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you not aware of this rule? would have meant that if in the future Artillery Division (British Army) becomes a separate article, 50 Missile Regiment would not directly link to it. NOTBROKEN means we put the redirect title, not the actual page title. Cheers and Happy New Year, Buckshot06 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I am aware of the NOTBROKEN rule and I agree that your subsequent edit is much better. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I reviewed some material I have on John Hick (politician) after seeing the page on Bolton Infirmary and discovered The Blair Hospital, at Bolton - demolished unfortunately. Were you planning a page on this one as well? Some pics here: ,, . Regards 80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Now written. See Blair Hospital. Dormskirk (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Grand job! 80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk, I don't understand your revert of my edit in the Glencore article. The point is that if even Glencore themselves only claim 95% SO2-reduction, the earlier figure of 97% can't be correct. I can't find any other information. How can we solve this? Theosch (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My point is simply that your edit was not independently sourced as required by WP:CITE. The source you had provided came from the company. All you have to do is find an acceptable source. Dormskirk (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't find anything prohibiting such a source. Could you point me to the place? It's a question of logic. In this case the company's own value is the most conservative one available, 95% as compared to the 97% given in the article, which must therefore be wrong, and was preliminary anyway. If it were the other way round, I'd agree with you. Theosch (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If you read WP:RS it provides further guidance. It says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". When writing an article about Glencore, information from Glencore's website cannot be described as "third-party". And I am not convinced that Glencore have a reputation for "fact checking". Dormskirk (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The point is that in this case even an unreliable resource is logically usable if the result cited is unfavorable to the source itself. Theosch (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I completely understand your point but nevertheless wikipedia does not allow the use of unreliable sources. The whole of the guideline WP:RS is written around that point. Dormskirk (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not a case of the reliability of sources but of simple logic. You deleted my simple observation based on the sources you accepted, that the emissions are still over twice the recommendation. The first reference says 3% (100%-97%) of the sulfur-dioxid still passes through the filters. The second one that the total amount before the filter is 7000% of the WHO-recommendation. As 3% x 7000% is 210%, the emissions are over twice the recommendation. This was also realized in arrears by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs^[1] who on 8.1.19 reported that the WHO-emissions were adhered to and on 18.1.19 retracted this wrong claim (last sentence).

Actually the figure must be even higher, as Glencore themselves report 95% filter effectiveness, not 97%. Therefore the emission excess is at least 350% not 210% (5% x 7000%). Because you do not believe Glencore's figure and deleted this reference, you put their result in a more favorable light than they themselves admit. This is illogical and counterproductive to the accuracy of Wikipedia. Theosch (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not interested in putting the company's result in a more favorable light or a worse light; we only interested in being objective and stating verifiable facts. Your explanation above is helpful so I have moved it to the article. But some readers may still regard your calculations as OR. Dormskirk (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit, thoroughness and patience. Theosch (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk! Reaching out here about a finance-related article I've been working on for a while, since I spotted that you have an interest in financial topics. I had been working with another editor on updates to Magnetar Capital, for which I've outlined major article-wide issues, and posted requests for updates on the company's corporate affairs and CDO investments.

You can see a full-article draft in my user space and this diff to show the changes I've made in the draft vs. the live article.

There is a lot to digest, so I wanted to ask if you could take a look to see if this is something with which you might be interested in helping. As you'll see on the Talk page, I've had constructive discussions with another editor, but it appears that editor had to slow down their involvement on Wikipedia due to real life issues, so I'm looking for other editors who can look into this, too.

Standard disclosure that I won't make any edits to the article myself because I have a conflict of interest. I have been contracted to work on the article on behalf of Magnetar Capital as part of my work at Beutler Ink. If you have any questions or want to discuss more, I'm happy to do so at the Magnetar Capital Talk page. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Done as requested. I am not familiar with the company and even less familiar with the issues so it may be that other editors request that some of the deleted material be re-inserted. Dormskirk (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - Many thanks for this. Dormskirk (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand this may be the same in comparison but as ranks are a proper noun surely they should be capitalized? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Permareperwiki1664 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi - Perhaps they should but if you look at other military biography articles we have sought to standardise and the norm is to use lower case when referring to ranks. Dormskirk (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The full reference is at, for example, Structure of the British Army in 1989. I am just about to complete the citation, but this deletion of a source did make me wonder whether you were aware of the BAOR listing. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have seen the Vieuxbill BAOR document before but had forgotten about it so thanks for that. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I can identify no solid evidence that 'United Kingdom Special Forces' was formed in 1987. Dir SAS became DSF at that point, yes, but 'UKSF' does not appear to be an organisation; there's no commander of UKSF nor any location for it. What there is is DSF, with several organisations under him. Is there any evidence you can find that UKSF actually has a commander? Otherwise, I am considering merging this entire article to DSF. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi - If you look at page 65 of Army Commands it does state that the post of Director of Special Forces was formed in 1987. The only evidence I can find of United Kingdom Special Forces existing as an organisation is in the first paragraph of this. It says "UK Special Forces (UKSF) are a world class force capable of conducting short notice high risk operations..." Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The article Blair Hospital has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no apparent notability for this now closed hospital. It wouldnt have been notable when it was active, and it certainly isn't now, that even the building hasbeen demolished.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 11:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added something to make the notability clearer. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

We're edit conflicting all over the place; I'm trying to do further edits to this page but you're already on the job - thankyou. These are two short articles (regulars are only 21kB) and need to be merged!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies! Dormskirk (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do me a favour and keep an eye on User:J-Man11's edits. Much could be merged to regular elements of the TF/TA battalions he's working on at the moment, and most could use cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to see if I have a lot of information than create, but I don't I'll usually delete it.. J-Man11 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@J-Man11: I suggest you slow down on creating new articles on battalions of regiments. They seem to be largely just orders of battle again. The histories of these units are already well documented in the articles on the relevant parent regiments. We really do not need proliferation of orders of battle everywhere. Dormskirk (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I started it, is because many territorial army / volunteer units have interesting histories and aern't made.. But I might merge a few into the parent regiments. Like the yorkshire volunteers and the wessex regiment. J-Man11 (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@J-Man11: I think that would be very helpful: otherwise the articles are in danger of being nominated for deletion on the grounds that they are not notable. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2019/february/18/190218-new-senior-naval-officers-appointed

FYI for you to create biography entries.

BlueD954 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger! They removed the news link. BlueD954 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the list via Forces News. https://www.forces.net/news/royal-navy-appoints-new-senior-officers BlueD954 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

All noted. I have done Andrew Burns as his is a key command. Keith Blount was already done. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is also Vice Admiral Chris Gardner to DE&S, do you want to create an article for him? BlueD954 (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, there's no entry for Rear Admiral Martin Connell, who takes over as the new Rear Admiral FAA. BlueD954 (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Chris Gardner will be one of six Chiefs of Materiel and I am not sure that we need biographies on them all. I agree that it would be useful to have one on Martin Connell and have now done one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but find it weird that the rest of the Chief Materiel (Ships) have bios and the upcoming doesn't. BlueD954 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the rest of Chief Materiel (Ships) have bios"? The article on Defence Equipment and Support suggests only one previous post holder (Bollom). I have no objection to a bio being created for him - I just feel that there are greater priorities e.g. previous post holders for the role of Rear Admiral Fleet Air Arm. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean the previous post of Chief of Fleet (Support). BlueD954 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. I understand now. There seems to be a proliferation of these posts at DE&S. I have now done one on Christopher Gardner. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. BlueD954 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi there has been a discussion between myself and another editor over at Talk:List of Royal Navy admirals where I have listed some concerns about them adding a cut off point of 1707 which was not there from the time of the articles creation until December last year my observations have been conveyed and have kindly requested they should set the date from at least 1660 as that's the founding year of the Royal Navy by name despite me providing reliable sources confirming that flag ranks for admirals were formally established in 1620 as their argument centered round there were no ranks prior to 1707 so therefore admirals appointed to the rank before 1707 do not count. I tried explaining that in order to be appointed to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet the first four Admirals of the Fleet had to be officially appointed to the rank of Admiral from 1688 and are not included in that list which is rather silly alas to no avail would appreciate if you have time to take a look regards.--Navops47 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Heathcote in his book "The British Admirals of the Fleet 1734-1995" is pretty clear that the first Admiral of the Fleet was appointed in 1734. Conversely the wikipedia article on the Royal Navy says the service was founded in 1546. I don't know if that helps at all. Dormskirk (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Really I am surprised at his dating that's not the date the National Museum of the Royal Navy gives here https://www.nmrn-portsmouth.org.uk/naval-ranks. --Navops47 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I was a bit surprised myself. Dormskirk (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20190308/281668256285828

Major General Gwyn Jenkins.

BlueD954 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/AdmPhilipJones/status/1103637912460165122

and https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-daily-telegraph/20190308/281668256285828

Should this be included in Navy Board?

BlueD954 (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want to include. Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Asking if the WONS should be included in the Navy Board since the news article and verified twitter says so. BlueD954 (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies should be Admiralty Board.BlueD954 (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose so. I will leave you to make the addition. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you help monitor and refine the introductory line and you may be better in providing information which regiment is the senior and oldest regiment.

Thanks

BlueD954 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I will take a look. Dormskirk (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

216 Parachute Signal Squadron. Add sources if you know about its history, help tighten the language which was atrociously added by someone. Thanks.

BlueD954 (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

AVM Ian Gale

https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/senior-appointments/ 11th March 2019. FYI.

BlueD954 (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

After reading news reports today about Taylor Woodrow Construction's financial performance in 2018, I had a look at the Wikipedia articles and have seen the extensive past conversations that have taken place relating to the historic business Taylor Woodrow and to Taylor Wimpey. I wondered if resurrecting an article on Taylor Wimpey Construction might now be appropriate, then adding a headnote to the Taylor Woodrow and Taylor Wimpey articles? Alternatively, should there be a paragraph within the Vinci SA article about its UK civil engineering business? Paul W (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think it would be a good idea. Please feel free to go ahead and resurrect the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dormskirk. 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.