This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ryan4314. 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.

Heh, glad you liked it. I did wonder if it was a little too cynical, but... nah ;) Incidentally, another two books for your Falklands collection (if you haven't already read them, and can find them): "Rainbow Soldiers" by Walter Winward, and "Don't Cry for Me, Sergeant-major" by Jeremy Hands and Robert McGowan. Neither are historical, but the second in particular is well worth a read. Regards (!), EyeSerene^talk 15:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've not read that one... "Rainbow Soldiers" is pure fiction, but I remember enjoying it when I read it back in 1988, and the other is virtually an insider's guide to the British Army written by two reporters that accompanied the task force. Of the 'proper' histories, I think the Hastings/Jenkins book is my personal Falklands favourite. Even though it's got its flaws, it's very accessible and I thought it did well with the fascinating description of the political manoeuvring that went on behind the scenes. I've got a couple of others at home too, but I can't remember their names :P EyeSerene^talk 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

With the Ardent book, it's very clear the author has done a shit load of research, but it's also obvious he's trying to mention every crew member in the book. It's just too much, a lot of the mentions are mundane, and the swarm of names leaves you saying "hang on, was that the guy who...".

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope your formatting problem has corrected itself. Tony (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my vote. Generally, most ships will be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The SS Timothy Bloodworth article was nominated for deletion and is now an A Class article. If you look at the articles on the various {{Empire ships}} you will see that a lot of them did not have exciting lives, but nonetheless, there are enough sources out there to create articles on them. That is why I feel that the article should be kept and improved on. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sending me a message. Like I said I haven't !voted on the AFD, as I think we should keep articles about real things, that are well referenced (also you'll see from my user page I have a soft spot for ships). However, the views I expressed here are not always in concordance with Wikipedia policy (i.e. Notability). Belhalla has written a very good, respectful and conclusive nomination, showing how the John Stagg is non-notable. I would suggest that you do some searching and see if she did anything that could be classed as notable. Otherwise you'll just have to hope loads of people !vote keep for other reasons and that the closing admin decides to just count the votes or let the consensus over ride the policy. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

May I point out in the case of SS Timothy Bloodworth that, in my view, the ship was notable for inclusion by virtue of being the first ship to be hit by a V-2 rocket? I could find no such comparable claim of notability for SS John Stagg. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was also thinking that too. I think Peterkingiron's !vote said it best with "the Hull number is 1737. Does WP need perhaps 2000 articles on individual liberty ships?" You've written a very good nom Belhalla (hence my impressed mention above) and I don't fancy the keeper's chances in this debate. Even if they canvassed etc, this would surely fail at a deletion review. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you gonna take this to Deletion Review Belhalla? It's a shame you didn't have Jerry close it, he'd of deleted it. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to Talk:SS Timothy Bloodworth… Is it necessary to have {{oldafdmulti}} when the information is included in the {{ArticleHistory}}? Or should it be separated out from {{ArticleHistory}}? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't realise it was in there. I shall revert, thankyou for notifying me of my error :) Ryan4314 (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Scale Rheinmetal.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Scale Rheinmetall 20 mm.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Scale Rheinmetall 20 mm.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Let .27em, note that the main page is always protected. That discussion is about whether or not to fully protect the article 4chan, not the main page itself (which will always be protected). Anyway, feel free to remove this comment (I'm letting you know here instead of on the noticeboard so you can do that), this is just a friendly note. -kotra (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The main page is not always protected, when my featured article was on the main page it wasn't protected. Anyway, feel free to remove this comment (I'm letting you know here instead of on the noticeboard so you can do that), this is just a friendly note. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, the main page is always protected [1] (we're dumb, but not that dumb!). The Featured article isn't ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL you guys thought I was talking about the literal "main page" and not the actual Featured Article on it? Even though I posted the offending post in a thread called "Possible Featured Article issue"???? Like I said guys, feel free to remove your above comments, this is just a friendly note. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no reason to remove it, but thanks for the offer. -kotra (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's ok mate, I was just worried you might be embarrassed about people seeing your mistake, if you change your mind and do want it removed; I'm more than happy to oblige, this is just a friendly note. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I made a mistake, but thanks for your concern. Anyway, I've conveyed all I wanted, so I'm done here. -kotra (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh Don't tell anyone, but "4chan" is a stalked word, hence my comment here ^^ I didn't read what lead to this conversation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, hence why I was worried about Kotra being embarassed, not to worry the 4th post sums it all up pretty well. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, KISS MY ASS AND QUIT ACTING LIKE YOU OWN WIKIPEDIA, PUNK ASS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.193.140 (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan,

There were lasers designed to dazzle pilots employed on ships during the Falklands War. Never heard of them being used.

As far as I can tell AAM hasn't changed since the Falklands War Matra R530 (Radar and IR) and the Matra 550 (IR).

BTW missed an earlier post of yours, you do realise that WP was used by both sides in the Falklands War? Justin talk 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Everywhere really, handy for bunker clearing. Its basically a smoke grenade but has an incendiary effect in a small space. Justin talk 14:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

GR9 don't have radar, correct. Retiring the Sea Harrier is another example of bullshit defence decisions - and on that I agree with Sharkey Ward. Justin talk 16:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as the tag reads, the lead of the article does not comply with WP:LEAD. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You are beating a dead horse there. I haven't made those statements (nor will I) since I copied and pasted that response to those poorly executed AFD's.Pectore^talk 03:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, Thanks for your kind comment about the above article; sorry for not responding sooner. Having read about your sterling work on getting the HMS Cardiff article all the way to FA, I wondered whether you would have another look at the Patrie to make suggestions as to what needs to be improved for it to achieve A-class/GA status. It has expanded quite a bit in the meantime and has attracted several other editors who have improved it. If and when you can make time to check it out, I'd be grateful for your comments. Thanks again! --TraceyR (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure no problem, where do you me to comment? Ryan4314 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page and for the advice. I'll get started on it today! Cheers. --TraceyR (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for many suggestions, which I shall "read, mark and inwardly digest" as soon as I get get an extended session on the PC! Sorting out the references will be time-consuming, but if it has got to be done, so be it. If you have a tool to aid this process that would be great - I'd appreciate that. No doubt I could do with guidance on the whole review process. Thanks again. --TraceyR (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, don't worry about the refs too much; someone else will inevitably do them for you. I run it through through some of my automated tools, you can revert some of changes if you want. Also if you want to discuss the review process, it'd probably be more preferable to E-mail me. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There was an operation on 5 June where Invincible joined by a "Type 64" attempted to tempt the Argentine Air Force into sending its fighters up. SHAR patrolled 120 nm ahead of the fleet but they chose not to play that day. It was a night hop with the task groupd withdrawing before dawn.

Claims of being anti-Canberra are dubious. Justin talk 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its in Sharkey's book by the way. Justin talk 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Need to do a bit of digging but the article needs a complete re-write. Justin talk 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done a ton of digging and can't find a single reference to Operation Canbelow. I'm kinda suspicious its a hoax article. Did you have any better luck? Justin talk 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ryan4314,

the comment which you posted here was unrelated to the discussion. I am trying to delete the article because it contradicts some aources, even though the article has its source. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See: Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox

I notice you created a really excellent image for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

Would you be interested in making a wiki-ad for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the compliment, I know a lot of people would be surprised that I created that barnstar. However I don't really have the time to commit myself to making an advert, although I thank you for the opportunity. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that someone could take time off to remonstrate over such a trivial technicality... Haven't you got something worthwhile to do, like writing stuff or reverting vandalism? Anyway, the guideline you point to states that passing off a major edit as a minor one is considered "poor etiquette". So if in the worst possible case I might have committed the mortal sin of "poor etiquette", well then so be it.

As for the edit itself, I do indeed consider it to have been minor. As far as I'm concerned, the core of an article is in the text, which provides all the information, while images add little more than aesthetic value, and their addition is just cosmetic fixing. Exceptions might be if an image provided information, as in the case of a diagram or a map, or if it was in some way controversial, or if it completely changed the layout of the article. None of these is true, hence it was a minor edit. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan noted you reverted Aidan's changes on HMS Cardiff, he's been a busy boy and one the same across the Type 42 fleet. Do you think its worth reverting them all or just that article? Let me know what you think? Justin talk 23:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue here, but it's being discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I ran across your user page in another context and saw the image File:Size of English Wikipedia satire.svg. I must say I agree wholeheartedly. There is a category missing from the graphic, however: Every two-bit athlete who ever played on a field in front of a crowd anywhere in the world. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL nice one, it's also missing every character/item in an anime or computer game. Hopefully I'll see you around AFD sometime. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ryan
I'm sorry you feel like that. It's not that it's my page - it's not (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). The issue is that the guidelines don't forbid it; they say it is not necessary. I've reverted twice because HMS Dragon (D35) has a common theme with the other Type 45 articles, because I feel the Infobox has a more coherent structure if it starts with the ship name, and because I thought the original removal rather odd (not least, seeing Benea reverted was probably a first!). What I would also like to say is that I have long admired the article HMS Cardiff (D108), and I'm impressed at all the work that clearly went into it. Long live Wikipedia! Shem (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your notice: is it really going to happen? Hasn't it been a failure on the German WP? I'd hate it. Tony (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Er I'm slightly ashamed to admit I have no idea how the trial is going, someone just asked me to put the banner up after I !voted once ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Brought my comments here so as to not get off the track at the AfD... which I sometimes do (sorry). The article itself stinks. Notability could in no way be sourced. His attitude was impatience and naivete'. In a different discussion over a different matter the idea was proposed that newbie editors (say maybe 1000 edits or less) have an strongly suggested option to have their articles placed in a "on hold" section for editorial review before being placed in mainspace. Essentially a user sandbox. Granted, newbies don't know what a sabdbox is or how to use it. This would strengthen the suggestion that they do so. We could then have a set of volunteer editors willing to step in and make constructive criticisms as to how an article might best be improved. It would be completely voluntary on the part of the author, but a "hold" section could act as a middle ground between creation and submission to main space. New authors can ignore input at their own peril and this might act as a method to more gently share understanding of the processes of wiki. Might be fewer new articles tossed to the wolves if the articles are better concieved before being given to the community. What thinkest thou? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, imagine it'll be hard to implement tho, making changes around here takes ages! Ryan4314 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. I have added some clarification in the review and as a response to your question on the main page. There are some substantial issues with regards to that account that I believe strongly if you knew the whole background of would make you agree that it has no place commenting there. If you need further clarification, please let me know. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above. The account whose opinion is unwelcome in my editor review is an admitted sock puppet associated with this arbcom case, which as you can see dealt with harassment. Now when White Cat and I originally argued to block the User:Jack Merridew account at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Workshop#Proposed_enforcement_10 as a sockpuppet we had to contend with all this hyperbole of how our suspicions were wrong and all only to as his userpage reveals it be confirmed that he and several other accounts were indeed reincarnations of the same editor who had used these multiple accounts to evade blocks and to harass inclusionists. These accounts were blocked indefinitely, but the sock account rather than the original account has been allowed to edit with a host of restrictions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions. As I changed my username and requested oversight of various stuff in my userspace due to harassment and given what I, White Cat, and others had to deal with unpleasantries with regards to the various incarnations of this user, I am sorry, but I refuse to be talked down by it in any venue, especially after attempting to assume good faith and be nice to him at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Hello. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to oppose any attempts you make at becoming admin because I do not think you can handle criticism very well. I think the original comment you had a problem with was informative and didn't violate NPA (in fact I'd say it was more polite than some of your previous reviews). Your failure to accept criticism and make compromises has been noted in recent reviews, it is also hypocritical to complain about other making contributions with a sock when you have in fact done the same thing. I suspect that you believe anyone who disagrees agrees with you is either a moron or part of some wiki-based conspiracy against you.

You said above; "I am sorry, but I refuse to be talked down by it in any venue", well I am sorry too, but I refuse to support you becoming an admin while you behave this way. There, you have made your point and I have made mine, neither one of us is going to budge on it, so to continue this would just be arguing for the sake of it and I don't fancy that, I'm sure you don't either. Sincerely, Ryan4314 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely not done the same thing as the account in question. I created two alternate accounts that I never used in the same AfDs and that I certainly never used to harass anyone, which is why the admin who initially blocked me unblocked me accordingly. There is no comparison with the above examples in my previous post concerning the other editor. As someone who has been harassed by various accounts, I am not open to feedback by an account that was created explicitly to harass someone. I am happy to work constructively with any editor and will accept criticism from any editor who is not a sock account used to harass others. Moreover, it's hard to take seriously being lectured about AfDs by an account that uses such "arguments" as this. Finally, I have no current interest in being an admin, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing trying for adminship up as I don't recall ever saying that I wanted that. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. I don't believe we've met before. Thanks for your comments. It does seem that above you meant to say that I did not violate WP:NPA, which I certainly didn't. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Amended. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I felt that it was obvious. We just don't use statements like "it is said..." without some sort of attribution. Ever. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I wasn't the previous IP address, I couldn't give a shit about that particular statement. Incidentally the problem you are referring to ("it is said...") actually requires the weasel word template {{weasel word}}. The tag that you are insisting on using indicates that you believe the statement: "The Saur Revolution led indirectly to the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan" is dubious. With this in mind, I can see why the IP changed it to a {{fact}} tag, even that would've been better than what appears to be now be your opinion about the effects of the Saur Revolution. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply the part that says, "it is said" is what fits {{dubious}} to me. Without that I think I would have added {{fact}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not, "it is said" is a weasel word phrase. See the list on WP:WEASEL. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed to {{Who?}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better :) Ryan4314 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script to remove the autoformatting or linking of dates or other functions; I hope you have found it useful.

This is to let you know that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry if I offended you at all with the comments I made there. I was just trying to make sure the consensus was read correctly. Spring12 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan4314, for all your inputs. It is editors like you that makes Wikipedia feel like home. – Shannon Rose (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you head back to [2] and see if the sources provided on the talk page are sufficient to address the issues with WP:N? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on with today and yesterday, but please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Venue_shopping.2C_retaliation.2C_etc._from_User:Ryan4314. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan! As with the above and elsewhere, we have not seen eye to eye and I think that we have had some needless escalations and maybe just plain old misunderstandings as of late. Your initial comment at my editor review suggests that you can be reasonable and as it is a holiday and all, I just wanted to send out a peace offering. So, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Hopefully, our future interactions will be more pleasant and if I can ever help you rescue an article, bring it to DYK, etc., I gladly will. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no vendetta against you, Wikipedia is a hobby for me. If you feel we do not "see eye-to-eye" then I recommend that you try and avoid me and I will avoid you. Naturally we should both continue to contribute to AFD, but other than that there is no other reason for us to be in direct contact. This would be the best sort of "peace". Ryan4314 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If you do change your mind and are willing to give me a chance, you are welcome to participate at User:A_Nobody/RfA#Suggestions. Also as one last note, I have taken your advice from the Editor review and joined Adopt-a-user as an adopter. So, with that again, Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we're agreed on this. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That last post could be construed as kicking an editor while they're down. You might want to consider refactoring it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Shannon will see it like that, I would say we're "friends" (or whatever the Wikipedia equivalent is) [3]. I think Shannon has the potential to be a great editor and that others provoke her. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I didn't understand that was where you were coming from. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ok mate, glad to see you're checking to make sure other editors aren't unnecessarily winding her up. :) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your: "(Reverted 1 edit by Chuckarg33; Do not edit war, take it to the talk page. This article is not about Argentine constitution"

I did take it to talk page but you undid edit again without discussing it.

Plus the text I added was not about the argentina constitution at all! It only said what was added to it which SPECIFICALLY refers to the islands. In other places throughout the article it refers to argentine legislation so why not this reference to the most important piece of legislation that talks about the islands? Chuckarg33 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to do the report myself, so thanks for doing it! LibStar (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem mate, he's reverted 4 times now, after 3 different editors disagreed. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure "mate"!! Friends will be friends! You are just biased and ganging up on one person. Plus the points in the talk page weren't addressed at all! Chuckarg33 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never encountered Ryan4314 before today. mind you rules are rules on Wikipedia, see WP:3RR which you have deliberately ignored. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"ganging up on one person" just sounds like no one else agrees with you. Ditto I hadn't met LibStar until today either. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Don't worry about reverting him, he'll be blocked soon, judging by his last edit summary that's obviously what he wants. Don't risk violating 3RR yourself, it'll be taken care of soon. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted Chuckarg33's IP from his edits for Falkland Islands. After going through an throughout check, he has signed over all messages he has posted as that particular IP with his own account's signature, so there is reason to strongly believe that he has just simply forgotten to log-in when posting these posting rather than "edit(ing) from another account" evasively. He does not mind that you acknowledge the country where he is from, but please do not post his IP address again, as it is considered to be poor form and has possible real-life implications. I've also warned him, in reply to his email correspondence, to exercise caution in ensuring that he is logged on and not to edit war in articles. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, glad to see that you found the South Georgia article nice. What fact on this article do you think qualifies for DYK? Thank you.--Darius (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, to answer your question, no I don’t unfortunately know Bruce Barrymore Halpenny, but he is someone I would very much like to meet as I have a few questions to ask about the paranormal. I think I might be a bit young to be his brother (also maybe not clever enough ;P) Also would like to meet Peter Underwood, and I’m not related to him either. I just got interested in them and their work, but mostly the airfield ghosts by Halpenny. I thought this was an area I was getting pretty good at and it’s been fun researching it all, I also like reading the books. Do you think I’m going a bit overboard? I’ve tried to back everything up with refs and at least try to get an area of Wiki that I can be reasonably knowledgeable about, though there are those even better than me at that. --SteveKSmith (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah it's fine, my only criticism would be... don't create articles about books he wrote, instead use those books as resources to add to articles about the book's subject matter, that way you'll avoid allegations of "shoehorning" or people thinking you work for him. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks. You’ve made me self concious now. I’ll bear in mind what you say, but I don’t have all his books (a fair bit is from the Internet) but I have got some and last week bought one (older version of the Ghost Stations books) with a picture of the author. Can I use it for the article on Halpenny? If it’s on the back of the book cover, it should be okay? --SteveKSmith (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, no. Halpenny is still alive and someone owns that photograph, thus making it "non-free", Wikipedia's policy is to not use non-free images of people who are still alive. Understanding the image guidlines on Wikipedia takes ages to learn, see WP:FAIR, WP:NFCC. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to get into any hot water. I think I might have found a niche, with categories, so I’m going to study that. Will still focus on subjects I know though. Thank you. --SteveKSmith (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If u ever have any questions about images, just ask me mate. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will, and give me time, I'll help with categories or any info in books I have. --SteveKSmith (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping if you have a minute to explain a non english speaker what the difference between defence and defense . thks --Jor70 (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Defence" is the British way of spelling it, "Defense" is the American way basically. See WP:ENGVAR. In regards to Falklands related articles, "Defence" should be used. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for the way you edited my contribution about landmines in the Falklands Island article. I appreciate the care you took.

As you may know, the question of units of measurement in this article has led to acrimonious debate this year. People have taken several different positions:

1 Metric first as a general rule.

2 Imperial first as a general rule.

3 Imperial first as a general rule, except for temperatures in Celsius.

4 Follow the source of the information as a general rule.

I myself favour the metric system, but would be willing to follow the sources of information, many of which are metric only or metric first. Also, if there was a clear consensus for one of the other positions, I would accept it. However, at the moment there is no clear evidence of a consensus.

As one who has made such a good contribution to this article your contribution to the straw poll and the discussion could be valuable. [[4]]

Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Loss of Gazelle XX377, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note - it's normally best to leave it to the reviewer to strike out points on a review, because they may need addressing further and it's up to the reviewer to 'sign off' on them. If you want to use {{done}} or something to indicate you've dealt with a point, that's fine (though I know reviewers who object to that too!). It's not a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but some would see it as a minor breach of wikiquette ;) Thanks for your responses, and I look forward to being able to support your article nom. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate any help I can get, thankyou very much. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back here sooner, I've been preoccupied with school. In answer to your question(s): Yes you got the ambigious link, but according to the toolbox those two external links I was concerned about are still in the article, and they are entirely unrelated to the friendly fire v blue on blue discussion; they are flagged as being redirects and I want to make sure the article information cited to these links is still going to the correct website -god forbid your reliable external links get redirected to a porn site or some other unsavory place, but a redirect is a redirect, and I would like to know if the page are still fit for use in the article. In fairness, I will move to weak support so you can pick up my vote, but do get back to me on those external links :) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom, thanks for taking the time to write to me, I understand about the toolbox now and that the redirects are the BBC links. Is there anyway I can fix the links to go to their original source or something??? Or will I just have to find other refs??? Ryan4314 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As long as the material both here and there match up you do not have to do anything with the external links; however, if you are worried about it you can check out the internet archive and see about getting back to a page that way. More info can be found here if this is something you would like to do. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article has been promoted. I didn't get the chance to respond to your latest edits, so I wanted to let you know that I think you've done an excellent job and fully support its promotion. Well done :) EyeSerene^talk 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'd love to carry on and address the issues you've raised, if that's ok with you, I presume should I go for FA they will come up anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've dealt with most of them. it's possible some will get raised again at FAC, but maybe not and you can always adopt a wait-and-see approach :) I'll keep the article watchlisted anyway. If you want a hand with anything just drop me a note. EyeSerene^talk 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually there was couple things I was hoping you could still help me with:

• I'm still interested to hear your replies on:
  • The linking in the Bicheno quote
  • The yards quote
• See the above comment from Tom, are you able to help me "fix" those links, I'm not sure how to do it please.
• I also plan to fix your last point about the IFF and "Effects" section. Thankyou for your time. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, as promised I've uploaded some images for you, File:XX377Memorial.JPG, File:XX377Memorial2.JPG and File:XX377Memorial3.JPG. The last one might want cropping as it's got the aircraft window frame in it (I can do that if you want me to upload an edited version), the muddy tracks were made by 'BV's. I've got another photo (unfortunately it has me in it) of a stainless steel cross on the peak itself so there must be two crosses in the area. There is one more shot looking from the crash site due south to Mare Harbour, not much in it though. I've got quite a few other images, ground and aerial, of Fitzroy, Stanley, San Carlos, Goose Green, the Argentine cemetry, 2 Para and Colonel Jones memorials etc. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

These are an amazing find mate, they'll really help the article. Incidentally these are the most conclusive pics about the XX377 crashsite I've ever seen, I wasn't aware there was a 2nd cross by the "205"! Can I use the aerial one in the article? The rest I could put onto a commons page. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just seen your Tornado photo, very impressive. For my own interest would you mind e-mialing me your photo of the silver cross on the top of the peak please. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps easier than that is if you look at Pleasant Peak on Google Earth, someone has kindly posted photos of the other (main?) cross, the '205' can be clearly seen as well. There is a new road (stone track?) and also some new buildings. I used to walk up there most Saturday afternoons from MPA. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded my photos to Commons so no permission is required to do anything with them!! Shout if you need more, I took quite a few of the more well known settlements and battle sites. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the photographer "Bob Wood" has reserved the rights to the photo [5] which means it cannot be used on the project (Wikipedia). You should pop round to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group, images like yours would make you very popular, especially the battlesites/wreckage stuff. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shame, my picture is pretty similar except it has me in it. I'm pretty busy with the aircraft engine task force at the moment but if the project needs a particular photo just shout and I'll see if I can help. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just noticed your post above - I'm really sorry I missed this (I forgot to watchlist your talkpage). Since the FAC has started, I may make a few copyedit-type tweaks to the article, if that's ok? EyeSerene^talk 09:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• That'd be great, I need all the help I can get please. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, though you're doing great :) EyeSerene^talk 09:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been through the article - comments on the FAC page. Hope it helps :) EyeSerene^talk 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article just passing its FAC! Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From me too - nice work :) EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers guys, thanks for all your support. In regards to FAC though: "never again!" lol ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm admin there, but as Belgrano. When I moved here the username was already taken by someone else, so I had chosen a closely related one. But I'm the same person. MBelgrano (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was actually only a tiny little stub a year ago but since then they've been covered more than ever before by the media meaning that there's been plenty to include. It was quite difficult to make it neutral when most sources are obviously against them but hopefully it is ok! Smartse (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw this article mentioned on ANI. I have never heard of this plane but I have heard of the A-4. Very interesting article. Suggest commenting when the A-4 were built (or approximate period or year), the ones that were later converted to A-4AR. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Left a few comments for you at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Lebaudy Patrie. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I'll make sure the author sees em. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge - I didn't even have the MilHist Review page on my watch-list! I'll attend to the comments as soon as I can. They raise interesting points. Great stuff. Thanks again. --TraceyR (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have made a few amendments to the article and have amended the MILHIST banner template to "current" status again. There I get stuck, since the page it wants to open has been archived and says it shouldn't be amended! Adding the article to the list would just transclude (?) this page back onto the assessemt page, which would look odd! I've backed off from doing that and hope that there's another way to achieve the same end. Cheers. --TraceyR (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you are: Carry on from step 4 using this this page as your assessed one, were u explain your reason for nominating etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to help out with this more in-depth. Tracey has ended up nominating the article for an A-class reappraisal review where the two outcomes would be to stay at A-class or demote from A-class instead of being promoted to A-class. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be making a meal out of this! I've amended the text on the request, but it may need more tweaking. --TraceyR (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ryan4314, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of List of traps in the Saw film series - a page you tagged - because: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review that you may have an interest in: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 8#File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg. Justin talk 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah I got it thanks, lets just get this thing pushed through. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. If you go to my talk page, you will find the answers you asked for. Regards.--Darius (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate. The only fatalities at Port Howard (all told) were the following, according to a 1985 interview with RI 5's commander, Lt. Col. Juan Ramón Mabragaña: 7 dead in the course of a RN Sea Harrier/RAF Harrier attack around 22 May (at the same time of the shooting down of RAF Lt. Glover) and another soldier who died of starvation the same day of the skirmish which cost the life to SAS Captain Hamilton. The total death toll is, in effect, 8 soldiers. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou very much, you are indeed very knowledgeable. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Using Jerry Pook's book, I can confirm the attack occurred on 26 May, a two ship attack by RAF personnel (in GR3s I presume then), Bob Iveson and Tony Harper. Iveson reported an "easy attack" and Harper said "that the whole thing had been far too easy and clinically efficent: 'a bit like murder' were his words." Very sad, thankyou for your help. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also in Pook's book we can see the recce photos Pook took of Port Howard on 23 May, which Iveson claimed aided their target acquisition. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me for your questions, Ryan. I am at home right now, and I can confirm what Lt. Col. Mabragaña said in the interview. My other Argentine source Comandos en Acción (remember, I cited it during our old disscussion about the death of Captain Hamilton near Howard) also ratifies the date given by Jerry Pook. I was also brownsing the pics on Pook's book, which I bought a couple of years ago; really impressive recce images, man.--Darius (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say, that of all my books, Pook's was my favourite, very comprehensive. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jor has also found some information, what do you think? Ryan4314 (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to what I was reading last night, there is also some disagreement between Mabragaña and Ruiz-Moreno (author of Comandos en acción, p. 334). While the commander of RI3 is quite adamant on the number of KIAs as result of the RAF strike, Ruiz-Moreno gives the figure of 5 killed on 26 May, plus the soldier who died on 10 June, almost at the same time of Hamilton's death. The latter also mentions an officer, a NCO and 4 soldiers injured. I think they couldn't be medivaced to Stanley, therefore is possible that some soldiers died later of wounds. There was a medical company (Compañía de Sanidad 3) deployed to Howard, thus there is a chance that some of the killed by the RAF sortie belonged to this unit.--Darius (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It also may be that Lt. Col. Mabragaña mentioned the total death toll of RI3 (seven fatalities) to the reporter, who took for granted that all these deaths were the consequence of the Harrier attack.--Darius (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my cuppa tea, but at least one of his works is back in print. Did you do a Google book search, etc.? Bearian (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think he's notable, that's good enough for me :) Ryan4314 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I added a couple of cites, so don't just take my word for it. Bearian (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Freedman doesn't mention specific ships at all, HMS Avenger was however sent to Fox Bay not Port Howard. Freedman talks of an initial attempt to use landing craft, frustrated by bad weather, then another using a trawler and another ship as well as a helicopter lift. Justin talk 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)