User talk:George.Hutchinson
RE:Battle of the Hook
Hey George the source i have says that the battle took place in late July just before the armistice. It is defiantly a different battle but a later one, I wonder how many times this location was the site of a battle. This battle does deserve its own article probable as the Fourth battle of the Hook. Hossen27 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would create 4 separate articles with the first three named as (First, Second and Third) Battle of the Hook. Although the battle honours are Samichon the article calls it the battle of the hook. I do believe the army calls it the Battle of Samichon though so it should be named that. Hossen27 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Hossen.
- Different armies labelled it differently. there had been several confrontations on that strongpoint, that's why the British Army used the term 3rd Battle of the Hook. I'm vaguely aware that the Australians might use the Samichong label, as is their right.
- The British Army relieved a USMC division in the Spring of '53, and they in turn were relieved by others, possibly an Australian contingent.
- My own advice, for what it's worth, is to leave well alone. The soldiers who defended the Hook position in May '53 know it as the 3rd Battle of the Hook, and that's how it's recorded on their Battle Honours. See the Wiki page for the 1DWR battle honours here:
- [1]
- I'd regard a move to change names around as disrespectful to those soldiers of all the armies that contributed, as I'm certain they would.
- George.Hutchinson (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Bismarck Chase
it seems that the link to HMAS Nestor was placed back in the article, thanks for the heads up though. Hossen27 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice you left a note on this user's talk page. I just wanted to let you know he is on a Wikibreak seemingly due to health issues, so you may not hear back from him for some time, if at all. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Type 45
Hi George. I have replied to your comment on my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Kind regards, Mark83 (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The World According To Ronald Reagan
I saw that you said that we needed an updated version of the poster for George W. Bush, so I'm posting a link to a similar poster that I saw. Worms42 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/111/298202156_73e54012fa_b.jpg
Trinidad Coastguard vessels
Hi. Yeah I heard about this but we can't predict what will happen, the Brunei arbitration took 3 years. BAE Systems won that one, but I think I read that Trinidad & Tobago are going to claim breach of contract. I would say they have a strong case but then it would depend on the wording of the contract.. and I'm no lawyer! :) Mark83 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
MS Queen Elizabeth
- This is in relation to the gallery. Please see ]
- Apologies for not replying earlier, only just noticed your post on my talk page. As explained above, 3RR is not a right. That said, it appears that the warning to both editors had the desired effect, and the warring stopped. Therefore there isn't any need to take any further action. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Port of Southampton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 2013.]]
Thanks,
Talkback
Message added 15:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Brian Burnell link broken
Hi, I'll enter the attribution as requested, but the link you have for Brian Burnell's site is broken in several waysL
1. it has a space in it
2. the domain nuclear-weapons.info returns 'this page has just been registered' (that may simply mean that you or Brian haven't put anything there)
PeterParslow (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (logged in now!)
- Hi Peter. Just checked Brian's site at http://nuclear-weapons.info/index.htm and it worked for me. Perhaps the link itself was corrupted or misspelt. George.Hutchinson (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, George.Hutchinson. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, George.Hutchinson. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, George.Hutchinson. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)