User talk:Captain Seafort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bloody Sunday (1920)

Hi,

I noticed you added the {{NPOV}} tag to this page. Could you list the specific NPOV issue(s) there are with the article on the talk page Talk:Bloody Sunday (1920) please? Thanks.

Demiurge 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blowpipe missile

Martin,

Regarding your edit to the Blowpipe missile page [1]- could you provide a source for that quote - i.e. a book/magazine or webpage. Wikipedia has a policy of "No original research" that requires everything to have been printed somewhere before it is included in Wikipedia. Thanks.

Megapixie 01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seafort Saga/Seafort/Etc Pages

Just read that Feintuch had died, thank you for a great start to these pages and all the work you did to UNNS.


Finn

[edit] Stewart McPherson

Hi, I saw you created the Stewart McPherson article. Could you help clean it up? There are some news articles posted in the aritcle and I don't know where they're from, and there are some broken images and other various wikifying issues. I figure you'd know more about the original article, or could at least recommend somebody who does. Thanks. --Awiseman 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll contact him. --Awiseman 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Hi I was looking at the site as well, and noticed the broken link. Is the site you mentioned as Victoria Cross Reference actually this site: www.victoriacross.co.uk? Could you update it if this was the right site? Thanks. --MPW 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nicholas Seafort

Really good job here, mostly just needed commas. :)

The only issue I can see is the sudden introduction of Annie. Maybe fit her into the transprop section and mention how the two married? I would if I had the books handy to ensure that I didn't get the timeline wrong.

Finnegar 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seafort Saga

Well, I've not read the series myself, but I recognize your interest in it, and commend you for the work you've done on it. However, I am a little troubled by the content. I'm not sure it's ok to use the publisher's synopsis in a wikipedia article. Don't know. It might also help to see if you can get a template or navigation box for the series, so one can easily jump from book to book. See On Basilisk Station for how the David Weber books do it. I do think improving the base articles is a better place to start than adding others article content for the series. And yeah, there are way too many Tolkien articles. FrozenPurpleCube 20:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fictional military brats

Hey Martin, I was wondering how difficult it was for you to find the list of fictional military brats? It is a realatively newly created list and I saw that you added Reacher to it and was wondering if you had any difficulty finding the list? Did you find it via Military brat and if so, what did you think of the article? I'm looking for ways to improve that article and the lists. I'll watch your page for response.Balloonman 16:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I found it from the main article- I've read a few of Child's books so I decided to add Reacher in. As for the main page, it's very comprehensive, but as the note a the top comments its also very US-centric. I don't have anything like the academic knowledge to add the POV of other countries, but I'd suggest looking at the British military if you're going to, given that postings are often linked with off-base, rather than on-base, accommodation for families, maybe consider how that affects the mentality. Captain Seafort (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the thoughts... I'm probably going to add another section to the article because I've been investigating this weakness... and apparently, most of the funding for research into military brats has been from the US military. So I'll probably add a section discussing the research funding and why it is US centric and why the conclusions may not apply to non-US brats. I've also been told that British service members might move more while their families stay put...Balloonman 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midshipman's Hope

We appreciate your contributions to the Midshipman's Hope article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. For this reason your edits have been reverted or removed. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the information in your own words, if you do please remember to cite your source(s). For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks, -- ReyBrujo 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Bouchain

The article on the Siege of Bouchain is fine, however, your emphasis on the siege of Arleux is wrong.

On 6 July, Marlborough captured the small fortress of Arleux, just to the north of the Lines, west of Bouchain. . . The Duke was then wrong-footed by Villars as the French army crossed the Lines on 22/23 July and retook Arleux, with the allied army too far to the west to intervene in time, and the defences were levelled before the French retreated back across the Lines. Marlborough, initially furious, soon retook the initiative . . .

Marlborough had no interest in Arleux – it was part of his deception plan. Marlborough’s fury was artificial – as Chandler says “for the benefit of the French spies. . . in actual fact the duke was laughing up his sleeve”. In other words, Marlborough was playing an expert game of trickery to put the French off-balance before revealing his real intention and was NOT "wrong footed by Villars".

Chandler Marlborough as military commander p.288

This is what John Lynn says in his Wars of King Louis pp 343-344: ". . .it was a clever ploy to convince Villars to weaken his own line at Arleux. The Allies took Arleux. . . to draw Villar's attention" Raymond Palmer 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regeneration--Agreed!

Noting your most recent revision to the passage about the involvement of the being called the "Watcher" in the fourth Doctor's regeneration into the fifth, it is completely acceptable. This doesn't assume that the Watcher's merging into the Doctor's severely injured body does or does not trigger the regeneration (however and for the record, I do believe that the Doctor's line, "It's the end, but the moment has been prepared for" immediately before the merging, which in turn leads directly into the regeneration, contradicts your "there's nothing to suggest that the Watcher directly triggers the 4-5 regeneration...." Open to debate, I'll concede, but the suggestion is there, and I for one have never seen the scene as reasonably open to any other interpretation; Nyssa's statement that the Watcher "was the Doctor all along" left me flabbergasted on first viewing--late '81 or early '82, so I had no prior knowledge of events here). Anyway, the current revision is just fine. Ted Watson (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)