User talk:MAG1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MAG1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Given your interest in Montgomery, you may also find WikiProject Military history of use. Wikiprojects are used to collaborate on a particular subject. Happy editing. Leithp 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice hockey

Thanks for your contributions on the history of Ice hockey. I did my best to reorganize the section, but it really needed more information and I'm glad you were able to provide it. I've added a couple of pictures; I'd really like to see an image from the NHL of the 40s or 50s but I haven't been able to find a PD one yet. Eron 04:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Field hockey

Hello, nice edits of the field hockey page. Could you consider adding your modification to the page field hockey history at the same time, as you modified only an extract from this page ? Thanks. Most of the time-related issue (history) should be in this above-mentionned page. Lvr 07:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello MAG1. I've reverted your last reversion, since the previous anon had added relevant detail and not removed detail as you stated. Hope that was OK. Thanks, Ian Cairns 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Copenhagen

I insserted the "weasel" Danish historians as part of an attempt about a year ago to avoid a wholesale edit war with a Dane who was convinced that a) the Danes really won the battle, b) Nelson was a war criminal who lied about Danish casualties and also only got the Danes to agree to a ceasefire by lying about their position. It was a rather unsatisfactory compromise but it kept the article going and perhaps you will have better luck. Dabbler 11:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for keeping an eye on BBC World Service

I know it's tiring, but I appreciate your keeping a vigilant eye on BBC World Service. Our anonymous friend keeps destroying one of my rewrites, which is starting to get tiresome. Do you think we may need to get intervention on the matter? --Che Fox 05:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Emergency: Éire and Eire

Yes, the usage certainly is sensitive - see third para of article Éire! My reason to use it with the accent is to head off the knee-jerk reactions. If used correctly, who can complain? By the way, you say that the form without the accent "was used at the time". Used in the UK, maybe, but not in Éire (sic!). It is a fine line to tread but I think that this style treads it. --Red King 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct spelling is É, not E, so I believe that this is what Wiki should use. You are equally correct about contemporaneous sources omitting the accent: there were typesetting capability issues then, which no longer exist (largely! You still see material in Italian that writes È as E' (E apostrphe) and also other material where the lines are closely set, there simply isn't room for an accent on capital letters and it is simply omitted). I believe that by including it, we will avoid controversy. As to your general point, well the same could be said about spelling but we still try to cleanup spelling errors. Writing Eire for Éire is a spelling error. But I'll add a further explanatory note regarding the contemporaneous typography. --Red King 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRA

Mag1, if you read talk:Irish Republican Army, you will see that the claims of the group calling itself "the IRA" from at least 1930-something onwards are highly contentious. So it doesn't seem right to ignore that. I also agree that contemporaneous sources in Ireland called it "the IRA" and used the term "Old IRA" for the orginals. I accept that the article shouldn't get bogged down in detail: it reads to me as already a Featured Article Candidate. But the references to "IRA" will generate an edit war if it reaches FA. Can you look at it again, maybe invite comment on the talk page. (I'm not saying that my version is right, you can see that I've reverted myself!) --Red King 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

you will definitely stir up a hornets' nest of you suggest that the Irish Republic didn't happen until 1949! (or that it continued to exist after 1922, as the latter-day Sinn Féin would have it). Yes, your revised phrasing looks good to me. I'll see if I can get my hands on Girvan's book - sounds interesting. --Red King 20:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Río de la Plata

Mag, I understand that you are a fairly new editor (around 5 months, according to your welcome msg) and I gather that some of the WP Conventions may still be unclear. We do not take edits personally, ever. Nobody calls you a liar if the undo or modify your edits, much less question your good faith. You provided a non working link for an encyclopedia that not everybody owns and (according to other editors) costs 1500 pounds. I'm sure that other sources will provide the same reference and the only thing I did is to request somebody to post them. I even took the effort to compliment your edit to avoid exactly this "hurt feelings" sentiment and to comment the edit to make restoration simple. I appreciated the quality of the paragraph but without a working link I considered it Original research. I accept your apology but I strongly urge you to consider your attitude towards your edits. If you are going to be possesive about them then I suggest you simply refrain from editing since WP is in constant movement and is very likely that your edits will be severely distorted as time goes forward. As an example, look up Lionel Messi. That is a page I created. If you look at my first stub and the page now, you'll understand my previous paragraph. If you are going to look to your contributions as part of a bigger thing, then I urge you to keep the fantastic work you've displayed so far, I believe you're a very good editor and a valuable contributor.

Sincerely, Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

Jtdril and yourself have earned much respect from the other editors on the BI talk page, and do appear to be the more knowledgeable editors. Best think about changes for a bit longer, as quick changes and reverts can look like an edit war. Then we all lose confidence again. MelForbes 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I see myself as a whippet barking at the threshold of this great debate, and if and when I get things wrong, please ignore. Thanks! -MelForbes 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What wholesale reverts??? I didn't make any. I edited the opening paragraph and nothing else. If reverts happened, they weren't by me. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My screen said it was the current version I was editing. I see what you mean but I never touched that footnote. (I never even saw it.) One thing that does happen, very very rarely, is that if two edits are done at the same split second, even though an edit conflict should show it does not because a save has started on one before the other has finished the milisecond it takes for the other to save. So in effect both saves merge under name of the person who saved a milisecond later. It happened to be me once before. It also happens where two users revert vandalism using rollback. If someone has already rolled back a half a second earlier, you may end up rolling back to the vandal's edit. So it is possible that either the system didn't have a current version open but said it did (and I had opened the current version), in which it is a technical glitch, or a fluke occurred of two edits, mine and a vandal, at precisely the same time. Well spotted, in any case. If I had known it had happened I would have corrected it instantly. But as I said it certainly was not in anyway deliberate. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't quite follow. Is there more missing? Maybe I'm missing something (literally) but I don't know what. If you know, please feel free to re-include it. If I knew what it was I'd do it myself.

Re this

For example, P. North, The Private International Law of Matrimonial Causes in the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland (1977). Not fully referenced: needs at least page numbers and preferably author and title em . . . the author is there, P. North. (Law publications more often than not give initials, not names, or first name and middle initial. Professor John Kelly's books were published, for example, as J.M. Kelly or John M. Kelly, never John Kelly.) So is the title. And the usage of the phraseology is in the title. All that is missing is the publisher and I have been trying to find that. It wasn't listed on the reading list. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was reading over the website which you referred to, http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/cork.htm on the British Isles talk page. Can you tell me if it's a Unionist website. I see it's registered in Newtonards with Admin in Scotland. Just wondering. 86.42.155.13 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really Unionist. It says that it is a movement that campaigns for Ireland to recognise all strands of its identity, including those that align themselves with Britain. The website does not appear to be dogmatic or extreme, and seems to use repectable sources, but I have no idea whether it is anything more than one man and his dog. I was not, of course, saying that its ideas should be incorporated anywhere, just using it as a factual resource. MAG1 08:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Yes, it is an improvement. --Red King 00:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've clarified my desire for refs on the BI talk page. Thanks. Hughsheehy 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OED

Esoteric, scholastic language would hardly qualify as standard English usage. The most common definition is "of or relating to GB the UK," it's used to describe UK citizenry - attempts to allude to it encompassing Ireland ot to mention it can mean its most common definition are pov. I am satisfied with your re-wording. Iolar Iontach 09:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat: blockquote vs. cquote

Mag1, by what authority or rule do you base your switching of quote format on the heat page? --Sadi Carnot 13:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat

I am afraid he only justification for the change in quote style is I didn't like it: large and vulgar, and it also gives too much prominence to the quotes, which are not central to the article. Format is a minor change and this is a wiki. What do you think to the rest of it? MAG1 15:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your contrib seems reasonable; however, please use spell check (I counted two) and grammar check (I counted one) in both your talk page and article contributions. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 15:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNC

Thanks for links! Besides google books and scholar i use: Bartleby for quick reference(fast site and decent search), The Online Books Page, Internet Archive, and Find Articles. When the information age fails me, and i have to use my wallet: Questia(slow site and mostly publisher's cast-offs), Blish for filling hard drives, Amazon for killing trees, and Powell's for picking up their dead carcasses. A neat source i recently came across is Richard Westfall's Catalog of the Scientific Community in the 16th and 17th Centuries at The Galileo Project, but don't know if this would be citable within Wikipedia. An odd little collection is Integrated Publishing for U.S. military manuals (not very useful but sometimes fun). Wikipedia has two lists Wikipedia:Academic resources and Wikipedia:Research resources(for the free ones) where you might add the corpora(my new word for today). Thanks again for the links, always looking to add to the bookmark folder!EricR 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] James Ussher

You cut out my Elizabethan categorisation for James Ussher because he wasn't in public life. It's a fair point, except he was praised before 1603 for taking part in public dispute with a jesuit - it's mentioned, but not dated, in the article. Or have I got that wrong?--Shtove 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waterloo times

Please see Talk:Battle of Waterloo#Times --Philip Baird Shearer 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's "nous" with you?

In the Battle of Waterloo#Charge of the British heavy cavalry, you wrote "...had not much experience in warfare, and no tactical ability or nous." What does that mean? Clarityfiend 00:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Entre nous, that meaning is rather obscure this side of the ocean. Any objection to replacing it with shrewdness? Clarityfiend 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I have added (commonsense) to clarify that (no pun intended) let me know if it needs anything else. Tirronan 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100 days

I can use your help on the article 100 days, biggest load of crap I have seen since I don't know when. You are knowledgable on the subject and I am asking the Waterloo crowd to help me out with this. Tirronan 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Montgomery

Hi, why did you revert my edit without any comments on this talk page (or am I missing sth)? Please explain here, will you, otherwise I will revert back and add some comments here bigpad 10:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Waterloo#Armies

I have a rather odd request for you. If you take a look at the linked paragraph, there is a line which you originally wrote (and has subsequently been a bit amalgamated) which runs "Of these, 24,000 were British, with another 6,000 from the King's German Legion All these were regular troops, 7,000 of whom were Peninsular War veterans." What caught my attention first was the grammatical error of "All" being capitalized without beginning a new sentence. However, looking at the previous incarnations of the sentence, I see that your original version ran, "Of these, 24 000 were British with another 6000 from the King's German Legion (and included 7000 Peninsula War veterans[1]), though all were regular troops." These 7000 PW vets, I have to imagine they are not a component of the 6000 (being the mathematical genius I am), and so I have to assume that they come from the 24,000. However, all in all, I can't quite figure it out, don't have the requisite resources to correct it, and am incessantly bothered by the grammatical error. Would you be willing to take a look and see what you could do? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Atelaes (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Atelaes (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)