User talk:Hamish59/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hamish59, and

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions

. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

my talk page

, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

talk

) 08:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Human comments

I have also accepted the article on

talk

) 08:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at

Articles for creation

I noticed your submission in

Articles for creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914

. Thanks! It will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.

Before it can be added to Wikipedia, your submission should have references. All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is

verifiable

.

Here's an example of how to add references:

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea.<ref> Smith, John. "[http://foonews.com/Article42 Interview with Chzz]", Foo News, 1 April 2010. Retrieved 2011-05-22. </ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers^[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also,

{{helpme}}

at the end of this page, followed by a question.

Best,

ChzzBot IV (talk

) 13:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at

Articles for creation

Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sceptre ^(talk

) 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand on this: Click the "edit" link below and copy the content there.

• Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After that, just add {{TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914}} to each article where you need it to be! :) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk

Could you explain what you are trying to do at

talk

) 21:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a block of information (the Table of Organisation and Equipment) that is / will be common to 11 articles. I thoought a template was the right way to go, as it means future changes only need to be done in one place. So, no, it is not a navigation template. Did not realise templates were for navigation only. Inline references are there only because "Comment: As this submission had no inline references, help was added to the author's talk page, User talk:Hamish59 ChzzBot IV (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)". How else can I achieve my aims?Hamish59 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think articles don't normally have templated chunks of text, even though technically it seems a good idea in this case. Of course, you could just copy & paste the TOE in every article... I've asked for help at

talk

) 22:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Uh? Yes indeed, can copy and paste. However, repeat that 11 times when a change is needed (e.g. I figure out the personnel numbers of the Signals Detachment). Or for a piece of information that is repeated many more times (e.g. a TOE for the 50 or 51 infantry divisions in Augusst 1914). Rapidly gets out of hand...Hamish59 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at

Articles for creation

Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk)

01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see tips on how to better format your article." This is Template. The context is provided by placing it within the articles it is designed to enhance.Hamish59 (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hamish, one suggestion might be to create a TO&E page for the cavalry divisions in question initially, and link to that page for each of the eleven divisions. It's probably more important to get this information into the article space that make sure it's in template form initially. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like any advice/help. Kind regards from Geneva, Buckshot06 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Buckshot06. I will follow your advice.

Hi Hamish, Buckshot's suggestion is a good one. I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Help needed with template (?) at AfC that a larger-scope article be created, but that might be unmanageable. What are you planning to cover? Regards Nick-D (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D, I have added TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914. I may extend this later, but the changes in the German Cavalry Divisions after 1914 were so myriad that they are no longer standard.Hamish59 (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but they didn't operate as divisions much. It would more useful to have TOE articles for the infantry and ersatz divisions. I'd prefer that these be in one article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehrmacht and German Empire units

There's a wt:milhist discussion that you probably should take a look at. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military_history#German_formations, Buckshot06. I thought a consensus was reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Military_history#German_Field_Armies_of_WWI_.26_WWII, but I must have been mistaken. Sigh. Cannot understand the inconsistency... Divisions should have separate articles, but Armies not? Hamish59 (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be wish to review Nigel Ish's comment: armies were disbanded, and later reformed only after the Reichswehr became the Wehrmacht Heer. I think it may be correct to split the army histories. But would you consider stopping after you've split the armies -- the rest seems unclear. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, in accordance with

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, if a unit has a unique name, such as Army of the Niemen, there is no need for a bracket disambiguator. It does not need to be Army of the Niemen (German Empire) because there was no Russian or Austrian or whatever Army of the Niemen. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk)

11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hamish59 (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two other things. Would you mind please reading the whole of

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME? Because the Army of the Nieman was absorbed into the 8th Army, our guidelines would direct that the whole article be merged into 8th Army (German Empire), as that was its' final designation. You'll see that there is no de:wiki article for the Army of the Niemen. The other thing was on the interwiki links. Would you also please mind reestablishing the correct interwiki links for all the German Empire army articles ? They've been broken in the process of our separating Imperial German and Wehrmacht formations. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk)

12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Passchendaele

I wonder if you'd mind reviewing the Passchendaele page and the branches off it, to do that thing where the link to another page is abbreviated. I've tried to do it but don't know how, hence the unwieldy links. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC) When there's a disambiguation page, there's the title plus something else and I see that the bit that takes you to say, Fourth Army (German empire) has a vertical line and the bit in brackets behind the line isn't visible on the page. I see that you've modified some of the links I did in this manner. I've tried to do General Sir Herbert Plumer this but I don't know where to get the vertical line - I tried one on the edit page (at the bottom where the vowels with umlauts and acute accents etc are stored) but it didn't work. Is there a template or a formula for doing it? Thanks. PS I don't know much about the technicalities of computers.... Keith-264 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, on this keyboard that one has a break in the line. When I tried it I got the bar, thanks!Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks again.Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for importuning again but do you have a description of how combine references to sources without using 'ibid' and 'Op. Cit.' so that I can address this: "Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (January 2012)" which is as succinct as your explanation of how to label links so that they flow? I looked at the various advice places linked in the notice but as usual they expect more knowledge than I have. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I tried grouping the citations for a book on this page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Menin Road Ridge following the instructions on the various advice pages and failed miserably. The first book in the references is 'Sheldon J The German Army at....' I used the template with the Cron reference you suggested and that came up all right but when I tried to amend the citations to the book I couldn't find a way to discriminate between pages. I'm ploughing through the advice pages but as usual finding the bit I need is difficult because I don't know where to look. Any suggestions? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hill 70: Scuse me Hamish but you changed the link to the WW 2 14th Army instead of the Great War 14th army (14th Army (German Empire)).Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wehrmacht Units

Hey I really enjoy your work on the articles your are making. I'm Kinda Curious are you making any articles on WW2 German units?--Corpusfury (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It seem like your finish with all the German WW1 Field Armies what now?--Corpusfury (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

How were you able to find all the articles that were link to yours? Curious by the way--Corpusfury (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Panzer armies of Germany in World War II

Please do not add Category:Field armies of Germany to articles in this category. I've just spent some considerable time moving them all to the subcategory and removing them from the main category - the whole category tree is hierarchical. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hamish, and especially for doing that so quickly. Regarding the mainpage discussion on Panzer Groups and PG Gudarian, are you planning to upmerge those articles? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to ask for more admin action as required. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History introduction

Hello and welcome to the

Military history WikiProject

! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several
  detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics
  .
• We have a number of
  task forces
  that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you have an idea for improving the project, we have a
  strategy think tank
  that provides a dedicated forum for discussing it.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

With regard to this edit please see

talk

) 20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes the first one (piping to 1st Panzer Army) no to the second one.

As you will know from the comments on the military history talk page I think that the splits you are making to the German army articles unwarranted. I think--whether or not your motives are political--the splitting of the German Army articles is making a political statement that is not justified, however the changes you are making to articles on that account has nothing to do with

talk

) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there were so few people involved in

talk

) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As to the differences in "First Panzer Army" etc. You would have to look through the history of how we have named armies and units. The initial agreement was to go with the country first. This makes sense of British units as the country and the armed forces are not one and the same thing (I won't bore you with constitutional theory) eg. "British Army" and "Army (United Kingdom)" does not mean the same thing, as the second does not in theory exist (but in practice does). This means all the units designated "unit (UK)" are wrongly described. So anyway some American editors could not agree on

First Army (Germany) then to 1st Army (Germany)

and now split into two or three by you.

The thing is when writing an article about a campaign it is useful to use different conventions or the two sides. This makes the narrative easier, so for example if describing a German British Engagement to use German 1st Army and British Third Army, means later in the aritlce when one can then write the "1st Army advanced" without having to put "German 1st Army" every time which makes the prose turgid. So in an article about Germany and the Soviets using the same trick makes the text easier to read eg by introducing them as the "German First Army" and the "Soviet 3rd Army" (or vice versa) one can then write the "First Army advanced" and it is obvious to the reader that it is referring to a German army in that article. --

talk

) 11:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hamish. I'll fix the other couple of Pz armies you ask about. Regarding

WP:NOTBROKEN, note at the top of the page of WP:REDIRECT it says that [this guideline] 'is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.' Cheers 203.97.106.191 (talk

) 00:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Iron Cross

	The Original Barnstar
	In the Imperial Name of the Kaiser, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and for the great Work you have Done in Immortalising my Army's Name, We are Pleased to award the Iron Cross, Second Class. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ship templates

I have seen the template you mention, because I created it! {{Surviving ocean going ships}} and {{National Historic Ships}} cover two different things. Although it is possible for a ship to be listed on both templates, the latter also covers river and canal craft, Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.230 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan]

00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan]

14:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Manfred von Richthofen (General)

I have started the template:did you know nominations/Manfred von Richthofen (General), so, if successful, it may be part of the template:Did you know in the Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, George Ho. I have not seen this before; is there anything I am supposed to do? Hamish59 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well... I don't know, but let's wait for the reviewer to look at the nomination and the article. In the meantime, you can double-check the statements and sources. For rules of DYK, see

WP:DYKSG. --George Ho (talk

) 20:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I will have a look Hamish59 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you can clean up issues of the article. Some may be all-German and/or offline, or some unverifiable passages must be removed. --George Ho (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hamish, please let us know whether you're interested in pursuing the DYK any further. As George notes, some issues have come up that need to be addressed if the article is to be featured in the DYK section on the main page. We're happy to keep going with it or to stop pursuing it, whichever you prefer, but the edits would have to come from you. The issues are noted in the template page George listed above. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A week later, basically the same question - I raised it also with Projects Germany and Military History, but I believe you know the article best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages

Thank you for your recent articles, including assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject. You do not have to rate the article if you don't want to, other WikiProject members will do it. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow thm to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, Piotrus. I have ploughed through all the articles I have created and added the appropriate talk pages. I do not feel that I ought to be rating the articles I have added - does not seem right. It would be useful if there was some sort of reminder or prompt for authors to add a talk page automatically. Is there such a thing? Hamish59 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I usually think it's fine to self-rate articles up to C-class. B-class, you may be able to find projects that assess articles (through only the most active few do so), and GA and FA have their own pages for that. There is no reminder I know of, which is why I created my own. Feel free to use it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Heading spaces

Please note that Spaces between the equal signs and the heading text are optional (

WP:MOS) and therefore you should avoid editing only to enforce a minor and optional change such as this. Edits which switch one optional style to another have come a cropper before. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs

) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the

[majestic titan]

18:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Manfred von Richthofen (general)

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.

Yngvadottir (talk

Thank you! It's now also featured on Portal:Germany! If you have other DYK related to Germany, feel free to place it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

... and he made it to the statistics, more to come! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

... and came, 8,999 hits, be proud! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

	military history
	Thank you for introducing a personality such as Manfred von Richthofen, whose merits deserve to be known, - so do yours, you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 173rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, nice work on adding the infoboxes to those Heineken Cup Final articles. However, why have you put the winning team as the first team each time? Surely the teams should be listed in the order they are given on the ercrugby.com website? If the fixture is given as "Team A v Team B", surely the result should be given as "Team A x–y Team B" regardless of which team wins? –

Yeah, that's cool man, I know how to do it. I'll get round to it at some point tonight. –

Jay

22:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a thank you for all the work you did recently on the British and Irish Cup main page and the individual seasons. The pages now look much better than they did previous. Many thanks. Jowaninpensans (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently re-added all the non-test matched that were deleted by PeeJay2K3. I would appreceate it if you can help stop him from deleting the non-test macthes. I have looked at the history of the article, and both me and you are regulars in editing that particular article. We have put a fair bit of work and time into it, too mcuh for someone to come and delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby.change (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Sorry, didn't appreciate the problems that collapsing WW1 info would have. Didn't realise you had already reverted my change (I just assumed that it was one I had forgot to do - I am a bit anal when it comes to consistency).Glevum (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was merely to avoid an edit conflict; because you had completed your edit, my edit would have been interrupted by an edit conflict, which would have potentially meant for the information that you had put in to be overwritten. Aesthetics, mainly. Apologies. Craig(talk) 21:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

WilyD, I did not create 2013 end of year rugby union tests, nor have I resurrected it. I am trying to stop the artical from being repeatedly deleted. Hamish59 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm unclear. If you want to take issue with the AfD result, you should create a new article that satisfies the concerns that resulted in it being deleted in the first place. That's really the best course. Such a draft can be discussed at

WP:DRV, and put up if the discussion favours it. (Or if some admin is satisfied it does so, they can unsalt it and put up the article, but in my experience that's unlikely to resolve the dispute. DRV is best.) WilyD

10:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, WilyD. I will try to follow that path. A question: is it possible to retrieve the comment I made at the talk page when it was previously resurrected? Hamish59 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll undelete everything and move it to your userspace to give you a starting point. WilyD 10:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's all now at User:Hamish59/2013 end of year rugby union tests WilyD 10:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That is marvellous, WilyD. Thank you very much.

My understanding is that the original article was proposed for deletion by

WP:CRYSTAL. This does not sound like much of a consensus to me, and in any case was the wrong result, certainly as far as the likelyhood of these games going ahead. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the article itself, just that no one waded in with proof of notability. I am not sure how much knowledge of Rugby Union the various parties have, but to me notability of this is so obvious it is a no-brainer. Hamish59 (talk

) 10:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, a lot of relists maybe makes it look a bit weak, but everybody favouring deletion makes it look somewhat strong. I would on showing that the topic meets

WP:CRYSTAL makes some good detailed points, that are worth reading, about what is or isn't suitable for inclusion (but it's just a more specific rehash of N). WilyD

11:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading

WP:N. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Hamish59 (talk

) 11:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposer doesn't really have any clout, but you can try talking to postdlf. But there isn't much discretion in closing an XfD where the opinions are unanimous, so I'm not sure it's likely to be helpful. WilyD 12:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, then I need to go to

While it might be possible, it's a very rare thing, and I can't really say it's likely to be successful. DRV is very emphatic that it's not AfD round II (i.e., it's to judge whether the closer did it right, not argue new arguments). I have once or twice seen someone successfully ask for a second AfD to reconsider the article, but the usual approach is for someone to remake the article to address the concerns (in this case, find some good sources to establish notability), then go to DRV and say "This article was deleted (correctly per the discussion), but I want to create this new article that addresses the concerns of the first AfD. That approach is common enough, and often successful. (But I'm not a psychic, of course, I'm just trying to give the best advice I can from my experiences. Your mileage may vary.) WilyD 06:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this, WilyD. I have never tried to do this before, so your help / input is immence. I am currently getting the article back into shape, and searching for as many references as possible - trying to address the notability question by showing widespread coverage. For example. England's three matches [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Not sure how I can work them into the piece, though. Seems like over citing to me. Hamish59 (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe it's not ideal style, but it's not like you're trying to get it to featured article. I'm not afraid of overcitation. WilyD 09:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I will do something in the "See Also" section... Hamish59 (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 2005–06 European Challenge Cup pool stage, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://live.dbpedia.org/page/2011%E2%80%9312_European_Challenge_Cup_pool_stage.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

MadmanBot is in error. Hamish59 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol, sorry but i must have mistakenly deleted the Franco-Prussian War heading, my bad. Halmstad (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Hamish59,

Articles:

• 1st Dismounted Brigade
• 1st Composite Mounted Brigade

At the moment I will not go over the articles, later today I will try my best to point out what would and is needed to improve the article to get a "B class" assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a standard as such; it's more like common sense. People would never refer to Nigel Owens as "WRU referee Nigel Owens", they would be more likely to say "Welsh referee Nigel Owens". So we put the country, rather than the name of the association, while still linking to the association page. That is what we have pipes for, after all. –

Which is why we link to the associations, which are representative of countries. People can find out the minutiae of JP Doyle and Steve Walsh's national allegiances on their individual articles, but the competition articles should indicate which country the refs are representing by way of the national union they are affiliated to. –

Jay

17:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Then more fool them. People taking Wikipedia at face value is exactly why the site isn't taken seriously in the academic world. The link is to the union page, and whether we pipe to "ARU" or "Australia" or Walsh isn't going to stop people from thinking he is Australian or thinking they know better and changing it to New Zealand. You can't win. –

Jay

11:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heineken Cup Italo-Celtic play-off may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.

Thanks,

I reviewed my recent changes to Karl von Plettenberg, as you suggested. The link to Order of the Griffon was certainly wrong - I've changed it to point at a (future) page for the award; redlinks have a purpose. Then I'll add redirects with the various spellings of Griffin/Gyffon/Gryphon. The links to Swords and Order of the White Eagle were imprecise. Both now point at disambig or redirect pages which can be adjusted later. The Russian/Polish Order of the White Eagle needs a tidy up anyway. Thanks for the prompt. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an automated message from

False alarm. Hamish59 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If it was a typo, then it wasn't mine, as the

) 09:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

I do think the Auckland Blues v France game should have match day line-ups, and perhaps the Lions v Samoa match as the squad is not covered on the Challenge series article. The Lions sees the match as part of their Challenge series, however Samoa sees it as a warm-up fixture ahead of their match against Scotland and Italy. Which is why I think it should have line-ups. The Tonga match don't worry about it and the Saracens matches.Rugby.change (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the time being I'll leave it. But should someone add the line-up don't worry about it, as we should try to keep consistency from last year. Rugby.change (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamish59, this doesn't seem particularly complicated to me - starting XV means the players that started the most games in a given position. The citations point to squad lists wherein you may find all the necessary information to back-up these XVs. How this could be just "meaningless decoration" I don't understand - to be able to see the team lineups that professional rugby clubs chose for the season just ended is surely relevant and important information for an encyclopedia entry, otherwise we are just left with the whole squad list of players but no enlightenment as to which of them were most regularly selected. This would be a useful feature for all articles on major rugby clubs. The point of Wikipedia is to bring relevant, researched information to the public. Please explain exactly how my additions to these pages so disappoint your standards? (NorthwickP) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC+01) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthwickP (talk • contribs)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

User:Keith-264/sandbox I have the makings of a draft for DW here but am having a rest from the long-drawn-out Somme battles since the Guillemont gig, in favour of the village and wood sections like Fricourt.Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request

Now an article in mainspace TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914 Hamish59 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hamish59, my name is Howicus, and I wrote Convoy QP 11. When you reviewed it, you failed it on the criteria of "grammar" and "structure". Now, grammar I know how to fix, but could you please elaborate on what needs to be improved about the structure of the article? I'm a little confused on how to proceed. Thanks, Howicus (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

First, to make clear: I am fairly new to the assessment process. I think I was expecting more. For example, template:Arctic convoys; a separate bibliography / further reading / see also; a list of ships (merchant and naval): Convoy PQ 8 seems OK, Convoy PQ 13 perhaps more than expected; a bit of background (why were the artic convoys run?). Hamish59 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Concerning thsi edit of yours and many similar, I would like to inform you that per

Yep, figured that out once I saw what Yobot was doing. Hamish59 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! By the way, you are doing wonderful job in copy editing :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. Obviously, I will be paying more attention to

WP:SORTKEY. My mistake was to consistentaly change hyphens to ndashes in dates... Ho, hum. Hamish59 (talk

) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi do you have anything on the Cairo Cavalry Brigade? Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid not. Have you got a date in mind? Generally, I am only really any good for WWI and WWII. Hamish59 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I am looking at Sir Richard Granville Hylton Howard-Vyse ex commander 10th Cavalry Bde in Palestine. He was the commander Cairo Cav Bde in 1928, its the first time I have come across the Bde. From the date I presume they were still horsed. The only things I have found is on a web search seems they became the 7th Armd Div - Desert Rats.Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Try this: [7]

Cavalry Brigade, Egypt(11th Cavalry Brigade until ):

Brigadier-General Algernon Lawson: April 1920-April 1924

Brigadier-General Charles L. Rome: April 1924-March 1928

Brigadier Richard G.H. Howard-Vyse: March 1928-September 1930

Brigadier Geoffrey F.H. Brooke: September 1930-1934

Brigadier Arthur L.I. Friend: 1934-1938

Perhaps a search for "Cavalry Brigade, Egypt" may yield more information, or for one of the other listed commanders. Hamish59 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good find thanks.Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Da nada. Hamish59 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Karl von Fasbender, Hamish59!

Wikipedia editor FreeRangeFrog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work! :)

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

Learn more about

Dummy edit to provoke archive. Hamish59 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for creating 2013 Premiership Rugby Sevens Series, Hamish59!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Topic is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about

Dummy edit to provoke archive. Hamish59 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Hello Hamish59. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:TOE, German Cavalry Division, August 1914}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —rybec 20:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there I'm doing a piece on John Vaughan commander 3rd Cavalry Brigade then 3rd Cavalry Division, if you have still access to Becke, Major A.F. (1935). Order of Battle of Divisions Part 1. Does if say whet happened to him after leaving the division on 1918? Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Becke only shows the various commanders (and certain other appointmets, e.g. GSO, CRHA) for each formation, and the dates that they were in place. He does not note where they came from or went to. The only way to garner such information is to plough through all 6 Volumes (8 if you count Perry). That may not be fruitful if he did not go on to command one of the formations listed (or to hold a particular appointment). This claims he was Insp QMG Services so he might show up in Volume 4 (The Army Council, GHQs, Armies and Corps 1914–1918). Hamish59 (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks anyway he just seems to disappear, until given command of 1st Cav Brigade after the war. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just been through Volume 4 and cannot see him - not in Home Forces, BEF, EEF, Italy, Salonika, and not with any of the Armies or the Corps. Hamish59 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National League 2 North, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Hamish59 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

re this edit. As far as I am aware, my edit merely removed the linking that is now no longer encouraged by

The "current_season" parameter was no longer linking e.g.

MOS:LINK, please? Hamish59 (talk

) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I guess it's fine to link to a season proper, but when people simply put a year into the field, as it is in South Wales Premiership, a link to a year article occurs – one that is utterly unfocussed and useless in the article concerned. I guess it isn't your fault that this occurred. I see Tony's just put a note into the template documentation to avoid future linking of years. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it isn't your fault that this occurred Damn right it isn't my fault!

I understand now what the issue was - editors being dozy enough to link to a year article - and why you made the change. Putting it back to what it was, and adding the note to the template is the best solution (thank you Tony). When I get time, I will plough through all the linked articles - 301 of them, I think - and check for / remove linking to year articles. No worries. Hamish59 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hamish, thanks for that; sorry, I didn't even look above to see that this issue already had a thread. Cheers. Tony (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No problemo, Tony. Hamish59 (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Just 11 were problematic (and two of those due to translusion). Hamish59 (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hamish, it's unclear how Ohconfucius's edit affected the "behaviour" of the template. Could you be more explicit? Linking the year in those templates goes against common practice on en.WP, as well as the MOSLINK guideline. There is no content in the article 2012 that could qualify as useful under that guideline. I query why the year is in italics, too, while I think about it.

Could the year at least be unlinked without changing the behaviour of the template? Tony (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Operation Crossroads for Featured. I was wondering if you would do me a favour and review it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Err, I thought this article wnet through a review fairly recently? Hamish59 (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it went through an A class review. That is the usual stepping stone to Featured for a military article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Hamish59 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts }} to your user space

Not sure what I did to deserve this... Hamish59 (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Cfs198 (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The official league site only claims 7500 Can you provide a link? Hamish59 (talk) 12:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, just spotted your latest change. 7,500 (9,500 with temporary seating) is acceptable to me. Hamish59 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my proposals to speedily rename/merge:

• Category:2010 rugby sevens tournaments to Category:2010 rugby sevens competitions Hugo999 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Fully support. Hamish59 (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Top 14 season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierre Bernard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hamish, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make the links in the Hewitt Quadrangle more accurate. I think I had decided that in some cases - absent clarification, perhaps, from Yale documents - it would be impossible to know which specific battles were being memorialized. For example, I don't know how we can know if the inscription refers to the 1917 or 1918 Battle of Cambrai (or both), or which battle of Ypres is referenced. So I was curious what led you to the conclusion that it should be the 1917 Battle of Cambrai? I'm not sure it's valid to assume that the Yale students being memorialized were necessarily serving in the American forces. - Nunh-huh 21:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I have assumed Battle of Cambrai (1917) was correct – rather than Battle of Cambrai (1918) – as, I understand, US units were involved in the former rather than the latter. In particular, United States campaigns in World War I#Cambrai, 20 November – 4 December 1917 and Flag of the United States Army#Streamers would indicate the significance. Hamish59 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not proof, of course, but Services&ps=24&p=0 this should add weight. Should help to sort out Ypres and Somme as well. Hamish59 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a tinker with the page, do you mind having a look? Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Have you been able to do anything about the strength figures in the infobox? Hamish59 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2013–14 British and Irish Cup page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Fixed. Hamish59 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the article again, I see that you did put in all of the necessary citations. Sorry about that. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Hi Hamish, I have nominated Malcolm Orme Little for Did you know, which would hopefully result in its appearing on the main page. The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Malcolm Orme Little. Thanks, Matty.007 12:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Matty007, thank you very much for that. I am not sure what I need to do now... Hamish59 (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing at all! If you want, you can suggest an Alt (alternate hook), and I may ask you one or two things to clarify references, but I will try and take care of as much as I can. Thanks, Matty.007 13:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, mate. Hamish59 (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

For his third and final retirement, did you use

WP:CALC, or was there an actual reference? Thanks, Matty.007

15:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I used

WP:CALC. Is this a problem? Hamish59 (talk

) 18:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, but you may want to keep one eye on the discussion. Thanks, Matty.007 18:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Hamish59 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs