Hi noble Lord Eastfarthing, that's a really nice article, great job. I've put together a few short articles on the Seven Years War, but when I do have Wiki-time I focus mainly on Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars articles. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-08-10T21:52:00.000Z","author":"Jackyd101","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jackyd101-2015-08-10T21:52:00.000Z-Battle_of_Bishops_Court","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2015-08-11T18:15:00.000Z-Jackyd101-2015-08-10T21:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-09-25T05:20:00.000Z","author":"The ed17","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-The_ed17-2015-09-25T05:20:00.000Z-WikiProject_Military_history_coordinator_election","replies":[],"displayName":"Ed"}}-->
Had a tinker with it after if got a C class and found a bit more material.Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-10-18T21:28:00.000Z","author":"Keith-264","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Keith-264-2015-10-18T21:28:00.000Z-Operation_Skorpion","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2015-11-04T14:00:00.000Z-Keith-264-2015-10-18T21:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi there. You created both these articles: Capture of Santiago (1585) and Battle of Santo Domingo (1586), which are two of the attacks carried out by Drake in his Great Expedition. The same picture is being used to illustrate both, though it has been uploaded twice: 1 and 2. The latter image (Santo Domingo) is correct. The former image is wrong (the illustration shows the attack on Santo Domingo in Hispaniola, not the attack on Santiago in the Cape Verde islands). Not sure what is best to do here. The correct image was on Commons, confusingly in the image history for the second image linked above (see here). I am going to try and get this sorted out on Commons, but some things will need to be sorted out here as well. Would you be able to work out what happened here and how best to correct it? Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-18T22:52:00.000Z","author":"Carcharoth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carcharoth-2015-11-18T22:52:00.000Z-Image_confusion_in_articles_on_Drake's_Great_Expedition","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2015-11-18T23:38:00.000Z-Carcharoth-2015-11-18T22:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-24T14:12:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2015-11-24T14:12:00.000Z-ArbCom_elections_are_now_open!","replies":[]}}-->
How are you keeping?Keith-264 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-11-24T16:58:00.000Z","author":"Keith-264","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Keith-264-2015-11-24T16:58:00.000Z-Greetings_M'lud","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2015-11-24T17:14:00.000Z-Keith-264-2015-11-24T16:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-12-07T05:05:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2015-12-07T05:05:00.000Z-Nominations_for_the_Military_history_WikiProject_historian_and_newcomer_of_the_y","replies":[]}}-->
Hi. Congrats on the article, agree with you that Jurby's Head might make a more accurate title (though Bishops Court has a nice ring to it). However I'm a bit concerned about the image in the infobox - The artist (Gardner) only died in 2007 so his work wouldn't pass PD-Art and I'm not sure how we can use it without breaching copyright. Do you know if Gardner has granted permission for the reuse of this work, or if there is another reason we can keep the image? It's a nice pic, and would be a shame to lose it unless we have no choice. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-12-29T10:23:00.000Z","author":"Euryalus","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Euryalus-2015-12-29T10:23:00.000Z-Image_in_Battle_of_Bishops_Court","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2015-12-30T00:56:00.000Z-Euryalus-2015-12-29T10:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thanks for creating Azores Voyage of 1589, Lord Eastfarthing!
Wikipedia editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Congratulations your excellency, Lord Eastfarthing, on a job well-done in the new article, Azores Voyage of 1589.
To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Bugger! I didn't know about the Oob ruling; a lot of the WWI articles will need editing. Keith-264 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-02-11T14:49:00.000Z","author":"Keith-264","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Keith-264-2016-02-11T14:49:00.000Z-CE","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2016-02-11T14:53:00.000Z-Keith-264-2016-02-11T14:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
Wouldn't it be better to keep this information in the Nivelle Offensive infobox and put Oppy and Vimy in it as other engagements? Keith-264 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-06T18:20:00.000Z","author":"Keith-264","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Keith-264-2016-07-06T18:20:00.000Z-Arras_infobox","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2016-07-06T19:22:00.000Z-Keith-264-2016-07-06T18:20:00.000Z","c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2016-07-06T21:01:00.000Z-Keith-264-2016-07-06T18:20:00.000Z","c-Keith-264-2016-07-07T11:47:00.000Z-Keith-264-2016-07-06T18:20:00.000Z","c-Keith-264-2016-07-16T11:44:00.000Z-Keith-264-2016-07-06T18:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thanks for creating Cautionary Towns, Lord Eastfarthing!
Wikipedia editor Randeerjayasekara just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you for creating this page.
To reply, leave a comment on Randeerjayasekara's talk page.
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-09-16T06:01:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2016-09-16T06:01:00.000Z-Military_history_WikiProject_coordinator_election","replies":[]}}-->
Hello. I"ve seen that you are the one who gave a source to Egyptian political victory in the article about the Suez Crisis. The reference says: "Tal (2001) p 203". Assuming you have that book, could you a quote from the book, saying that the Egyptians won on the political side, or explaining how? This article is huge (250k bytes) and it was a bit hard to find an explaination to how excatly Egypt had a political victory. Thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-10-13T18:07:00.000Z","author":"Bolter21","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bolter21-2016-10-13T18:07:00.000Z-Quote_for_the_Suez_Crisis","replies":["c-Lord_Eastfarthing-2016-10-13T18:55:00.000Z-Bolter21-2016-10-13T18:07:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hello, Lord Eastfarthing. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-11-21T22:08:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2016-11-21T22:08:00.000Z-ArbCom_Elections_2016:_Voting_now_open!","replies":[]}}-->
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-12-29T05:01:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2016-12-29T05:01:00.000Z-Voting_for_the_Military_history_WikiProject_Historian_and_Newcomer_of_the_Year_i","replies":[]}}-->
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-02-26T07:24:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2017-02-26T07:24:00.000Z-March_Madness_2017","replies":[]}}-->
This topic has come up again on the American Revolutionary War talk page, and since you have experience in research on early modern warfare i was wondering what your opinion on the matter is since it potentially has a wide ranging impact on how such combatants are listed on other wikipedia pages concerning 18th century and earlier wars.XavierGreen (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-05-16T18:24:00.000Z","author":"XavierGreen","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-XavierGreen-2017-05-16T18:24:00.000Z-German_Soldiers_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War:_Mercenaries_or_Auxiliaries","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2017-05-16T19:22:00.000Z-XavierGreen-2017-05-16T18:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-09-21T10:39:00.000Z","author":"AustralianRupert","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AustralianRupert-2017-09-21T10:39:00.000Z-2017_Military_history_WikiProject_Coordinator_election","replies":[]}}-->
Hi Eastfarthingan, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, including translations such as Siege of Zutphen (1591) which you translated from the Dutch article. I have added the required attribution for your translation to the Talk page.
Please note that per WP:CWW, when copying or translating material from another project, attribution is required. Unlike Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which are recommendations which can even be flouted with the ignore all rules guideline, the requirement for attribution of translated material is just that—a legal requirement—and not a guideline. Please follow the instructions at WP:CWW for providing attribution when copying or translating. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-10-21T06:32:00.000Z","author":"Mathglot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mathglot-2017-10-21T06:32:00.000Z-Attribution_is_required_on_translated_or_copied_content","replies":[]}}-->
Hello, Eastfarthingan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-03T18:42:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2017-12-03T18:42:00.000Z-ArbCom_2017_election_voter_message","replies":[]}}-->
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-08T08:35:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2017-12-08T08:35:00.000Z-2017_Military_Historian_of_the_Year_and_Newcomer_of_the_Year_nominations_and_vot","replies":[]}}-->
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2017-12-21T11:29:00.000Z","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-2017-12-21T11:29:00.000Z-User_group_for_Military_Historians","replies":[]}}-->
Why do you deny that the Treaty of London was quite favorable to Spain? It allowed him to continue being the main power of the time (It appears even in the development of the article and I added sources)
Why do you deny that England stopped piracy in the Caribbean after the completion of the third Anglo-Spanish war? It is something that even puts in the body of the article, and that is of importance that is in the section of "Result".
And finally... Why do you deny that Spain won in War of Jenkins Ear? In this war the British Army and the Royal Navy were completely destroyed in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias, allowing Spain to continue having a dominant position in South America.
If you enter in the wikipedias of other countries all agree that in that war Spain clearly won. Why do you self-deceive? If it is something known by all people.
I have seen that you are English, I hope it has nothing to do with your partiality. It would be very sad of you.
A greeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.210.236 (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-02-27T07:58:00.000Z","author":"90.94.210.236","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-90.94.210.236-2018-02-27T07:58:00.000Z-[Anglo-Spanish_Wars]_Why_do_you_deny_Spanish_victories_and_documented_details_ab","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-02-27T09:51:00.000Z-90.94.210.236-2018-02-27T07:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
If you look at the other Wikipedia from other languages all agree that Spain won the War of Jenkins Ear and that the Treaty of London was more favorable to Spain among other things that I presented. Also, I have put sources that you have completely ignored.
That the user "JavierNF" has previously edited the articles does not mean that they are not certain modifications. That is not a valid reason.
Coincidentally only the English insist on denying reality and manipulating history, especially if it is against Spain. This is something that almost everyone in the world knows, the English envy towards Spain has always been very evident. Denying reality does not do you any favors as a country, because you give a feeling to the rest of the world of being self-conscious.
Thanks and kind regards. AE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.149.45 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-02-27T11:14:00.000Z","author":"37.29.149.45","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-37.29.149.45-2018-02-27T11:14:00.000Z-[Anglo-Spanish_Wars]_Why_do_you_deny_Spanish_victories_and_documented_details_ab","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-02-27T12:12:00.000Z-37.29.149.45-2018-02-27T11:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
@Eastfarthingan: if you are so inclined. A small ship article I wrote has been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship) by someone who at least once in the past has done the same thing, but gave up. If you agree that even minor, but well-documented ship articles have value you will comment to that effect on the page. The reason I am reaching out to you is that some of the articles I write are about EIC ships, not all of which have incident-filled careers, or long ones, but where documenting the vessels important and not builds a corpus of information. Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-03-01T15:10:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2018-03-01T15:10:00.000Z-Need_your_help_urgently...","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-03-01T15:49:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2018-03-01T15:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi Eastfarthingan, first, thanks for the help, though apparently it is poor WP from to ask for it. (I have apologised profusely to all and sundry, and am now apologizing to you too for embroiling you in the issue.) Second, I tarted up the West Indiaman article. It is now more than a stub, and I have linked to it in pretty much all the articles (130+/-) that mention "West Indiaman". Third, should we start thinking about breaking up the EIC article into at least two, and perhaps more. As you add more good stuff, the article is getting longer. I worry about readers' attention spans. Just a thought. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-03-01T21:41:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2018-03-01T21:41:00.000Z-EIC","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-03-01T22:31:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2018-03-01T21:41:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hey Eastfarthingan. Could I request your help in restoring the bullet points on the Vietnam War article. The visual editor must be bugging for me and the infobox is once again corrupted. A bicyclette (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-07T15:25:00.000Z","author":"A bicyclette","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-A_bicyclette-2018-06-07T15:25:00.000Z-Restoring_Bullet_Points","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-06-07T17:03:00.000Z-A_bicyclette-2018-06-07T15:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
Since you seem to know a bit about the British nuclear programme, I have two articles at A class review at the moment, on Polaris and Trident. Feel free to drop by with a few comments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-30T20:58:00.000Z","author":"Hawkeye7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hawkeye7-2018-06-30T20:58:00.000Z-Articles_at_A_class_review","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-07-01T00:30:00.000Z-Hawkeye7-2018-06-30T20:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi Eastfarthingan,
I saw your edit in the article Altmark Incident made back in February. I think the massacre of some unarmed peaople can't be concidered as a glorious deed. So it is a blunt exaggeration to claim this incident was a "British victory". Should not stand in the infobox. Greetings --Andreas (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-07-21T12:56:00.000Z","author":"Andreas P 15","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Andreas_P_15-2018-07-21T12:56:00.000Z-Altmark_Incident","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-07-22T08:50:00.000Z-Andreas_P_15-2018-07-21T12:56:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Andreas"}}-->
Hello Eastfarthingan.
I see that you have an incorrect knowledge about the matter. Let me explain.
In the first place, the United Kingdom did not support any of the belligerents of this war, it declared itself neutral. Therefore, to add in the information box to the United Kingdom as a belligerent in favor of the independents in this war is totally incorrect.
Secondly, the sale of arms was made by arms merchants (private), who due to the end of the Napoleonic Wars tried to do business in America taking advantage of the war situation, to self-benefit.
Third, the sale of arms (or rather the arms trafficking) was not exclusively for the independents. British arms merchants sold military items to independent and realistic. Therefore, this criterion cannot be used to support a military support to one of the warring parties.
Fourth, the British recruits and soldiers who came to offer their services to the independent governments did so as mercenaries, voluntarily and on their own responsibility, not by order or instigated by the United Kingdom. Many of them due to the financial uncertainty left by the end of the Napoleonic wars. It must be said that there were not only British, there were also French, Prussians and several other European nationalities.
On the subject of mercenaries, there is already a consensus. Check it here (the 2006 discussion and the 2018 discussion). In both, it was concluded that these soldiers can not form a separate entity, but that they are understood as inclusive for the respective political entities involved in the war, in this case the independent governments and their military forces. Therefore, your figuration in the infobox should be eliminated. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-18T00:46:00.000Z","author":"Muwatallis II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T00:46:00.000Z-British_in_the_war_of_Spanish_American_emancipation","replies":[]}}-->
"Saviours of my Country", Simón Bolívar
Here. [2] --Caminoderoma (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-18T13:42:00.000Z","author":"Caminoderoma","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caminoderoma-2018-08-18T13:42:00.000Z-British_in_the_war_of_Spanish_American_emancipation","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-08-18T14:35:00.000Z-Caminoderoma-2018-08-18T13:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
A very tendentious article, with personal interpretations (original research) and poorly written. Do you know the difference between the state and the private sector? The British state was neutral in the war and private entities (merchants) sold weapons during the war. And I repeat again, they sold arms to both parties, do you understand that? Do you understand that, for that reason, it can not be argued that the British private companies were on the side of the independents, much less the United Kingdom?
What appears in the wikipedia article in Spanish is irrelevant for wikipedia in English, and does not mean that it is correct, and it is not the case in all wikipedia. It is not a valid argument.
Finally, I remind you that on this issue there is a consensus, the British soldiers (and therefore the United Kingdom) can not appear in the infobox because they are mercenaries at the service of independent governments. Therefore, I urge you to respect the consensus already established and the wikipedia rules. (the 2006 discussion and the 2018 discussion) --Muwatallis II (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-18T16:23:00.000Z","author":"Muwatallis II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T16:23:00.000Z-British_in_the_war_of_Spanish_American_emancipation","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-08-18T19:59:00.000Z-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T16:23:00.000Z"]}}-->
Most of the opinions of the editors are against considering the mercenaries as belligerents, in the two discussions, that of 2006 and 2018. Without mercenaries, and therefore should be understood as military forces of independent governments, not separate entities. If your point of view is different from that idea, you should call a new consensus on the matter here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history), otherwise I will consider it sabotage and I will have to resort to an administrator.
Regarding arms trafficking. Here you have sources where you can check that British merchants sold weapons to the realists in the middle of the war.
Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario (1989-90). "América, siglos XVIII-XX: III simposio sobre el V centenario del descubrimiento de América celebrado en el Colegio Mayor Zurbarán, Madrid, 1989-90, Volumen 3", page 63. He says verbatim: "In any case, the British sold arms to both parties: to the royalists and to the republicans."
La Gran Bretaña y la independencia de México, 1808-1821, author Estela Guadalupe Codinach, page 242. He says verbatim: "The English merchants, very aware of the needs of the market in America, took advantage of the demand, sold arms and ships and financed expeditions in aid of the insurgents or in support of the royalists".
To mention some references. Therefore, it is not possible to maintain the argument of military support for independents. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-18T20:46:00.000Z","author":"Muwatallis II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T20:46:00.000Z-British_in_the_war_of_Spanish_American_emancipation","replies":["c-Caminoderoma-2018-08-18T21:33:00.000Z-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T20:46:00.000Z"]}}-->
It's a translation, the quote in Spanish says: "Los comerciantes ingleses, bien enterados de las necesidades del mercado americano, se aprovecharon de la demanda, vendieron armas y barcos y financiaron expediciones en ayuda de los insurgentes o en respaldo de los realistas."
The amount of weapons sold to independent or realistic does not change the fact that the British had no trouble negotiating with both. The reality of the matter is that the British only did business, they did not line up with anyone. The Americans did the same, they sold weapons without problems to both parties. Therefore, one cannot argue British military support of the independents, because they did not take part in anybody, they only did business. --Muwatallis II (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-18T22:03:00.000Z","author":"Muwatallis II","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T22:03:00.000Z-British_in_the_war_of_Spanish_American_emancipation","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-08-18T23:20:00.000Z-Muwatallis_II-2018-08-18T22:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
I respect the history of England and your country a lot. Believe me, I do not have anything against your country, and I'm not even Spanish either.
But we both know that it was a decisive victory. Even in the article it is stated that this victory allowed the naval dominance of Spain for a decade, and the Peace Treaty of 1604 allowed it.
Tell me what you need exactly to allow me to affirm that:
-It was a decisive and important victory.
-Ingland failed with the attack on Spain and its objectives failed.
I have put sources, not just one, and the book by Luis Gorrochategui Santos that includes studies by scholars of different nationalities.
A greeting. JamesOredan (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-25T12:23:00.000Z","author":"JamesOredan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JamesOredan-2018-08-25T12:23:00.000Z-English_Armada","replies":[]}}-->
Hope that helps? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-25T12:51:00.000Z","author":"Eastfarthingan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eastfarthingan-2018-08-25T12:51:00.000Z-English_Armada","replies":[]}}-->
You have deleted my edition because I have repeated the paragraph, but I see that paragraph repeated.
What do you mean? JamesOredan (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-25T23:07:00.000Z","author":"JamesOredan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JamesOredan-2018-08-25T23:07:00.000Z-Spanish_Armada","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-08-25T23:08:00.000Z-JamesOredan-2018-08-25T23:07:00.000Z"]}}-->
However, the true knockout blow would come courtesy of Mother Nature. Philip II supposedly exclaimed, “I sent my fleet against men, not against the wind and the waves.”
This phrase is not duplicated anywhere in the article and you have erased it. JamesOredan (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-08-25T23:31:00.000Z","author":"JamesOredan","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JamesOredan-2018-08-25T23:31:00.000Z-Spanish_Armada","replies":["c-Eastfarthingan-2018-08-25T23:37:00.000Z-JamesOredan-2018-08-25T23:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
your text:
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.145.34.57