User talk:Carre/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Albuera GA

Congratulations, and thanks for the userbox! I've gone through the article again wrt punctuation (and made one or two other minor tweaks); this is one of those areas I think it's always possible to improve, but Jacky's comment was a fair one - I found a few errant commas (and probably missed plenty more).

Just one point that occurred to me as I was re-reading: does saying Beresford 'wisely' decided not to send his men against Soult's cannon count as commentary?

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 10:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone - I do remember noticing it before and thinking I ought to check it with you... I always seem to have no less than six or seven tabs open when I'm Wiki-ing though, and my computer obviously multi-tasks better than I do ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful

I was hoping someone would do that soon :-) Check links link included, yes. I hope it takes hold: ILIKEIT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats on the FA, and thanks for the userbox! Anyways, I just wanted to take this opportunity to tell you thanks for working with me on the ce; having copyedited other articles, I can honestly say that having an involved author makes everything easier, better, and much more fun. So, good luck on your future articles, and don't hesitate to drop me a message if you need another ce in the future. Regards, --Malachirality (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto from this quarter, in every regard. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And from me too - all these FAs piling up, you're going to need a wider mantelpiece ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Metoo! I actually came by to thank you for all your work making Battle of the Gebora a featured article. Fascinating article. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Albuera FA

I'd say go for it, although if you like I could have a go at trimming those two sections down first (maybe storing the clippings in userspace until the other articles are up). However, I don't feel they're excessively out of proportion to the article. EyeSerene^TALK 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with Eye above, go for it. Although the sections in question could be trimmed if the siege articles exisited, I don't see length as a major barrier to FA. In giving this early exposition the prelude to the battle is well explained and the article is simple to read for those both familiar and unfamiliar with the action or the war (The quality of the prose and referencing really is of a very high standard). In fact, I only see one small barrier to FA; the folks at FAC are not fans of red links. Perhaps those unlikely to get articles in the near future should be delinked before nomination or the links moved to the talk page (after all, they can always be restored later). As I said during GA review, I would personally be happy to vote for this at FAC and I wish you good luck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!! Excellent artice from a very good editor, look forward to seeing more nice article from you in the future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dick Rifenburg FAC

How is Dick Rifenburg looking now? Can you support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you noted that your comments have been addressed. Can you now say you support?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

...that following his capture after the Battle of Badajoz in 1811, Major General Armand Philippon(pictured) was paroled to stay in the Shropshire town of Oswestry? by Carre OK? Victuallers (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly OK, but the Battle of Badajoz was 1812, not 1811 (1811 was when Philippon was made governor of Badajoz after the 1st siege, and when he defended the town in the 2nd siege), and the correct link for it is Battle of Badajoz (1812). Carre (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Armand Philippon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on the Battle of Albuera FA. Great work! EyeSerene^TALK 08:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: ...and thanks for the ubx (just noticed your message!) EyeSerene^TALK 08:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Wishing you all the best for a great Christmas and 2008. More FAs to come, I'm sure ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[1] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your message. I'm looking forward to the Vitoria article (one of the more interesting Peninsular War battles IMO!), and of course I'm happy to chip in elsewhere; just drop me a note as per usual ;) Blwyddyn newydd dda, EyeSerene^TALK 09:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Text Messaging

Can you please tell me where you got your statistics for the number of text messages sent in 2000 and subsequent years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpat (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Refactored to place at end. I take it you're referring to the Short message service article? In which case, reference#13 is the source for the number of texts per user in 2000, and that is from the GSM World. The press release can be seen at ref#13, or at http://www.gsmworld.com/news/press_2001/press_releases_4.shtml. Carre (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tables on Joseph Johnson (publisher)

I noticed your comment at FAC about the tables on Joseph Johnson (publisher). Which browser are you using? I'd like to try to help fix the problem. – Scartol • Tok 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a screenshot would be great. I use a Mac at home, and at school we have WinXP 5.1.2600 with FireFox 2.0.0.6; and it looks fine to me. I wonder if maybe there's an extra <cr> somewhere or something.

I know it's not actionable, but in some ways that makes it more urgent for me! =) It's always the little things that mean nothing that I obsess over the most. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thingalith

Thanks for the note; my expertise, such as it is, drops off very quickly once the Vikings show up in mid-9C, so this is really out of my area. I think the approach the MilHist page discussion is taking is the right one, though; check the sources to see if there really is enough independent discussion of this as a separate entity for a separate article, and if not (which is likely to be the case) then merge to housecarl. Hope I can help a little more another time. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Categories

The category states "To be included in this category a soldier must have commanded a corps or an army consisting of one or more corps." Carl Logan (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Latour-Maubourg

I finally saw your note about Latour-Maubourg. It was the same guy who commanded Soult's cavalry at Albuera. But I guess you figured that out. I'm just having fun writing up Peninsular War battles. Where is the best place to respond to your notes? I'm new at this. Djmaschek (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with prose style

Hi, if you have the time at some point, I have been told that my prose style on Glorious First of June and Atlantic campaign of May 1794 has problems and I was wondering if you would be able to take a look and tell me what you think I need to do to improve them. I realise there is a huge number of words there and I'm not asking for a detailed copyedit, but the person who criticised the prose didn't give any real pointers as to what specifically was wrong and I was hoping that maybe an editor like yourself who has a very fluent prose style might be able to show me how I can improve. If you are too busy then of course I understand but any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. All the best, --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sunday is absolutely fine, I too will be watching the rugby tomorrow (whole day in the pub!). I was just about to ask Eye as well, so thanks for seconding that. Have a nice weekend.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Albuera

I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know if this is the best way to contact you. You have obviously done a lot of research about the battle, but there are a number of small (but sometimes important) points of detail where my own primary source research indicates that the main sources you rely on (Fortescue and Oman) are themselves mistaken. For instance, D'Urban's memorandum on the campaign (published first in 1816 and then again as an appendix to his memoirs) plus some of the pamphlets written by Beresford in his flame war with Napier makes it clear that although Beresford was extremely unhappy with Long's performance, the actual reason for Lumley replacing him was the seniority point (which, ironically, was raised by Long himself). In addition, Long's own memoirs are quite specific that Lumley (confirmed by D'Urban) did not arrive until sometime after the battle started on the morning of the 16th and therefore did not take command until then. (Although it probably constitutes too much information for a Wikipedia entry, Wellington actually agreed with Beresford in early May that Long would be replaced by Erskine rather than Lumley, but delays in Erskine's arrival led to Lumley being chosen as a last minute stop-gap substitute, which is why he was late in arriving to take up the command.) In order to avoid edit battles, I would be happy to discuss information directly with you before it is posted. What is the most efficient way to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshalb (talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

Is 'decapitating' what you are after? This can be used in the sense of removal of the top end of a chain of command. EyeSerene^TALK 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: However, in the context of that sentence, 'decapitating' wouldn't sound right either... that sentence might be better completely rewritten? EyeSerene^TALK 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been mulling it over - saying the fleet was left 'rudderless' is tempting, but... maybe not ;) It is bugging me though; I'm sure there's a term for it, but I can't for the life of me drag it out of storage. EyeSerene^TALK 17:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A huge thankyou for all the support work you put into the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. The copyediting you did in preparing this article for FA standard was hugely appreciated and the article could not have reached this standard without your input. Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates in football articles

Hey Carre, thanks so much for taking the time to check over History of Ipswich Town F.C. and to comment on it at the FAC. While I think I understand where you're coming from, can you show me an example of a sporting article which currently exhibits the kind of date linking you're looking for? Or perhaps you'd be kind enough to spend a few moments taking a para from the History article which particularly irks and re-work it so I can see exactly what you're looking to change. I'm loathe to say "look at all the other football history FAs" but I think you've fallen upon this particular one and it may result in significant WP:MOS changes and WP:FOOTBALL's implementation of said policy. Thanks already for your time, but I'd be grateful if we can work through this problem to the benefit of all! Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion help

Hello helpful helper type people. I uploaded Image:Citations.PNG to try and help sort out a possible problem with {{harvard citations}} (see Template talk:Harvard citations#bug). The issue seems to have now been dropped, so there's no reason for the image to remain. How do I go about getting it deleted? An image equivalent of {{db-author}}? Or that? Or some other method? Cheers. Carré (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

db-author is fine. Tiddly-Tom 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Muchas-grassy-arse. Carré (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First

Thanks for correcting that sentence - I had a bit of a 'mare with it earlier! EyeSerene^TALK 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Query

On the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Economy of Ohio page you mentioned "Dr PDA's reference editing thing"? Could you point me in that direction? I spend way too much time editing footnotes, anything to make it easier would be great. Thanks! And again a compliment on the work you did on that, it looks much better. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On Deja Vu

User:Indopug has substantially copy edited the article. --Efe (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed on Refs for RCC

Dear Carre, I am following the example Mike Searson gave me on the St. Francis of Assisi page and going through all the refs on RCC right now. I have finished the first one, the National Geographic Society book by Tyler Hitchcock. Could you please come take a look and let me know if these refs need any more information. The original ref is at the top of the page with all the info, the subsequent refs are way down below in numbers 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, etc and they just have the authors last name, copyright date and page number. Are you sure that is enough info and that this is going to be OK at FA? NancyHeise (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Carre, I dont know what you mean about the reflist 3 thing. This is technical language that is way over my head and I don't know how to satisfy your concern on that issue. I am open to anything that will improve the article. Can you help me out in this area? NancyHeise (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for giving me the template and instruction for changing the relist format. I made that change but it did not have any effect on the page. The reflist still showed up as one column. I would like your support vote or at least to see your oppose withdrawn if I have answered all your questions to your satisfaction on the FAC page. I really appreciate your instructions that helped us get the references in proper order. Thanks for taking the time to help us. NancyHeise (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Campaign

Thanks for your comment, I'd forgotten that business over Barrosa, but I'll echo the sanity comment you made there. There is now a bit of an argument going on the talk page over the tags he slapped across it, so its not over yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Garcia Hernandez

Hi, I have seen your great map of the Battle of Garcia Hernandez. Could you please put that also in the commons, so that I can add it to the German language article? Thanks!Anne-theater (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives