I notice you've restored the British English spelling on this page; (good, I was thinking the same: And about whether simplifying the tense structure constituted "clean-up"; it seemed fine as it was). What I'm wondering is whether "organization" isn't the Brit spelling after all; it was when I was at school. Xyl 54 08:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain as well as the royal families of Europe (Person Page 205). 90.242.25.242 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be an error on that page, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which I would rate as being more accurate, has the title as Baron Burghley (not to mention the article on the title here at Wikipedia, see Marquess of Salisbury), and Burke's Peerage and Gentry. David Underdown 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This needs more info and quick or it will be delisted as a GA. I don't have anything to add. Can you help? -- SECisek 15:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear David, thank you for your detailed message and your explanation of your concerns regarding that article. I understand your concerns, and for that reason, I've done as you suggested: I've added that article to my watchlist, and I'll keep close track of events there. I'd also like to count on you to notify me in case any immediate actions need to be taken to protect the integrity of that entry, and to step in, should the dispute resumes. If you need my help, please don't hesitate to let me know, Have a beautiful weekend, Phaedriel - 22:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at the IP talk page look like they're aimed at me, but seem to be aimed at the IP. Care to clarify? --Dweller 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your position, but a brief comment of support might make all the difference to the FAC at this stage. Cheers anyway, Chrisieboy 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks David. I'm afraid I'm not terribly good at the reference templates, but I will try to use what what I can. What I do have is a copy of the Everyman edition of the 1549 and 1552 books - which is most useful. Otherwise, I am mainly relying on Eammon Duffy and Diurmaid McCullouch. TomHennell 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I can help? I have a copy of Proctor and Frere, which I have used on the BCP. One really does need a specialist reference book. P&F is very dated but reliable. I confess to being less than happy with what the entry as at present, but I do not wish to intrude.Roger Arguile 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to my tangled fingers. Roger Arguile 13:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wassupwestcoast 02:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care. I don't think it was settled, but it is not a subject I wish to dispute. Do as you will. -- SECisek 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't change every instance of Jesus' to Jesus's so we had a situation where both were in the article. Next, if you look at our article on Apostrophe, it states Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in an s sound, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[9] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[10] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's, even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's; Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules. This is supported by a google search of "apostrophe Jesus". (i.e. [1] [2] [3]). In my personal experience, Jesus' is much more common (and supported by grammar manuals). That said, I believe this is similar to various other spelling/grammar issues (like British vs. American) where wikipedia accepts both usages (Jesus' and Jesus's), but editors shouldn't change between the two without discussion. Hope this explains my revert. Thanks for bringing your concerns to me.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

David I am becoming annoyed indeed. to have the use of a system of footnotes trashed might slightly ruffle your feathers too. There is a reason for footnotes, anciently used which I have followed. I have lost hours of detailed work by WUWC's action, all of it defensible in terms of scholarship, for the sake of somebody's hobby (his word). My seriousness may be risible to some; I recognise the value of your copyediting; I am a substance man and your attentiveness is helpful, but is despair at someone's desire to spend time altering references instead of reading the text and checking that the references still work. Everyone has their point of view. Those apparently with more time are able to ride roughshod over those who are just trying to improve the material. I repeat: can we have a moratorium for a week and invite an admin to comment? Roger Arguile 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you may not realize but almost every year has a related page and numerous projects pull and try to sort concurrent events worldwide based on those wikilinks within articles. The same is try for dates like 7 January so those wikilinks are useful and help efforts to create a more comprehensive encyclopedia. Benjiboi 11:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tidying up. Could you please do me one little favour and not link Decorated, Perpendicular etc to Decorated period and Perpendicular period as I've incorporated them all into English Gothic architecture, where the styles can be effectively compared. I'll do some more at that page when I get around to it. Amandajm 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Losing the history is a bit of a problem. I'm not sure how one goes about turning a page into a redirect. Could you be terribly kind and do it, please? I find it hard to get my head around all these things! Amandajm 08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Underduds! Amandajm 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hate to see an edit war starting on my account so I will amplify without expessing any view. The original line from Ord is "The Blackets were not happy about certain financial matters at the mill, which led to the ending of the partnership with Mease in July 1837, and by March 1838 the whole business was in Chancery." This was important in the Edmund story as it explains why the marriage was disapproved of and hence why he was probably encouraged to emigrate. It also indicates that the Blackets were probably not operating the mill after 1837 and up to something else. What happened is not clear but apparently (Google search) Stokesley Mill is operating today as Armstrong Richardsons (This article "interprets" Ord).Motmit 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• This cannot be done. The 4 pages involved (English Gothic architecture, Early English Period, Decorated Period, Perpendicular Period) have all been edited in parallel. Do you mean an ordinary text merge? Anthony Appleyard 09:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

will do. Amandajm 23:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies- I've not seen this kind of thing before and mistook it for vandalism needing reverting. I'm using a updated Firefox on Mac OSX and didn't relaise my systems limitations.Zagubov 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reposted from another person's talk page so that explains it if it seems familiar to you)

Hello, it appears as though you want to create a biography for a Robert King who happens to be a classical musician... ? If so, one could create a distinction between a rock musician and a classical musician by requesting that the redirect placeholder for Robert King, the lead singer of the Scars, be changed to "Robert King (rock musician)" or "Robert King (pop musician)" and your Robert King utilizing the distinction of "Robert King (classical musician)", with "Robert King (musician)" serving the purpose of being a disambiguation page, just in case there's a Robert King who's a blues musician or somesuch. 69.152.136.151 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear David. I appreciate your editing of this entry. I was puzzled at the time and checked this with a RN friend (not a satisfactory way to check a reference I realise) and he suggested that both the location and the date indicated 'combined ops' which had been a significant evolution in anti-submarine warfare at that stage. I take your point that it's 'nonsense'. Good example of how well wiki works! It is really nice to be able to jump direct to the Gazette pages from the entry for my old friend. Best wishes, Simon Simon Baddeley 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On 13 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Denis Browne, 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.

--Rigadoun (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ian Cundy needs his cites sorting out. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 16:54 15 November 2007 (GMT). On the list of gazette entries, you can do with it as you wish. If you need bot help, let me know. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56 15 November 2007 (GMT).

Thank you for your message. I was completely unaware of that special BBC Radio 3 broadcast you mentioned, but I am very happy that the Portuguese composers are being given the importance they deserve. Hopefully, they will eventually have their name in the World History of Music, indisputably, as they deserve. I will stay tuned in the case a CD comes out. Nuno Raimundo (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've set up a skeleton for producing GC articles here. If you copy and paste the text into a GC article, then drop in the content, it will produce an article formatted something like Bennett Southwell. It will do as well for newly created or existing articles and I'll try to fit it into some of the existing ones. If you have any comments, additions or suggestions please add them to the page. I'm posting this onto the user talk pages of Nick mallory, DuncanHill, Wolvereness, RHB, Woodym555, Hammer1980,David Underdown and HeartofaDog. If any of you would like to change the skeleton, please go ahead and do so! I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have probably made some gross errors. If you want to discuss any of this (and have the rest of this group see your discussion) maybe we could discuss it on the talk page for the skeleton article? Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, our resident expert on pre-reformation English bishops, came out of her comfort zone to offer us some peer review on Thomas Wilson (bishop). Can you help me make the changes she suggested so we can renominate it for GA? -- SECisek (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, after one of your edits you noted that there is a guideline in WP:MOS on the preferred sequence of references before and after punctuation marks. Could you guide me towards the relevant section, please? Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have sympathy with your aesthetics argument, and freely admit that, when editing, placing the refs is a lot easier when its after the comma, but I confess that I'd never seen the Chicago Manual of Style, even when I was living in the US. (There is another American Modern Language Association style but that uses a different convention entirely.) I'd always been taught to keep such items within the part of the sentence to which it applies (would you place a ref outside parentheses?) and so will continue with the 'Nature' style, which I consider good grammar, unless it causes inconsistency. Thanks for doing the research, we learn something everyday! Ephebi (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can you help me get the Gazette entries for Anthony DeSantis put into the correct format? I've seen you doing this on many an [officer of arms]] lately, but your help on this would be appreciated. Thanks.--Eva ^bd 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you also help on Guy Stair Sainty's article?--Eva ^bd 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David! Please see my talk page for a bit more? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on High Sheriff of Cornwall and the news that the London Gazette has smartened up its website! Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, the London Gazette is wrong. The 2004 Sheriff was James Piers Southwell St Aubyn. Evidence presented in footnote, see also Who's who entry for Lord St Levan James St Aubyn is his heir. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose even that August publication is not immune from the odd typo! David Underdown (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This photograph is brilliant, I'm very impressed. I've lived in London for over 12 years and had no idea there was a representation of the cathedral there. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

According to AWB's spell checker, every step-x I've run across has been suggest for changing to stepx. For now I'll just click out those changes and bring it up at the AWB typo page to figure out whats going on. Mbisanz (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there was no earlier version - the initial article had been ripped straight from the Australian Dictionary of Biography. He's definitely notable, though - the article was only deleted because of the copyright violation, not because anyone was questioning his notability. If you're interested, you might want to create a new article. Rebecca (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. This is what I get for being a really slack admin. There were indeed revisions there, which had been strangely pasted right over with the ADB stuff. I've undeleted them. Rebecca (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No - no deleted revisions at all on that one. Odd. Rebecca (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I needed your suggestion regarding Gurgaon and NOIDA pages. They have been filling with loads of properties and links and I keep cleaning the spam. I already puhed the very long list of schools to a seperate page. Im new the the wiki world so not sure on recomended solutions to such problems. Please suggest. Thanks! thevikas (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you a Merry Christmmas and a Happy New Year, from Downunder. Amandajm (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You fail to understand the great distinction I'm drawing between sites which have NO free source whatsoever, and those which do. References to the ODNB can be looked up freely in any library which has a copy. References to Stirnet cannot be looked up anywhere freely. Wjhonson (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been following discussion here, but I would value your opinion. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[[4]] Very snappy to simply revert this. What if I tell you I have both the score and two CD recordings plus my musical knowledge? You require a fucking copy of the score to have things "sourced" or what? ;P -andy 84.149.84.148 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC), not amused

I've been adding some additional referencing to Brian Carbury, but I noticed looking at the external links that much of the content appeared identical to the two links given there, so I'm a little concerned about the copyright status of this text. The NZFPM site in particular has clear copyright notices on it. David Underdown (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

David: thank you for your message - I hope this finds you well! I can see your point, and although it was a good timeline structural source in my writing of the article, I felt that I hadn't in the way in which I had written, structured or found additional information breached their copyright. But I think the current version, in part thanks to your own efforts, couldn't be construed as a copyright violation. Happy to discuss further if you think necessary. Best Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

David, the use of one consistent dating pattern is preferred because the vast majority of users do not have date preferences set and in Wikipedia groups, a decision was made to provide a consistent date format, The reason that day/month/year was chosen was that it was unambiguous. If you use 01-10-2008, does it mean January 10, 2008 or October 1, 2008? For foreign users, the issue was always interpretation of dates since dd/mm/yr was often mm/dd/yr in their countries. BYW, all my comments were definitely "tongue in cheek" and you will observe, that I subtly altered rather than completely revised the templates (which I still don't like!) Have a nice day. Bzuk (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Having had a 33+ years background in Library cataloguing, I have a propensity to "scratch catalog" rather than using templates, which although useful for some editors are still "buggy" and do not have the kind of stable features that are required for consistent bibliographical records. Almost all the Wikipedia templates are "after-the-fact" add-ons that came about when a need arose. Templates are still being developed and I have seen so many alterations in their formats that I simply abandon them and use full MLA or APA formats for cataloging references. As to dates, the numerical system was discussed thoroughly in many project groups and although you may consider yyyy-mm-dd as a standard (and indeed the ISO standard), so many editors did not understand that and a uniform format was therefore adopted (at least in all the military and aviation groups in which I dabble). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

I can share your enthusiasm for a "brighter day" when all templates will read correctly and perhaps the Easter Bunny will oversee that... LOL, just being facetious; my main contention is that templates are an aid to those editors that are not professional cataloguers and few of that ilk have ventured forth into this WikyWacky world. For many non-library types, a simple, yet efficient system is possible, I just haven't run into a template that does that (maybe someday soon...) FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

I give you credit for wishful thinking, if nothing else. Meanwhile, back to ramparts, trolls and vandals afoot! FWIW, thanks for the "across-the-Atlantic" conversation. Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

"What is this place except a triumph of wishful thinking (albeit somewhat gnawed around the edges by human nature reasserting itself)?" Pure poetry David, and the only reason that I still devote any time and energy to this project is in meeting people like you and being able to collaboratively work on topics of like interest. It sometimes makes me question my commitment when there are so many on the outside that "poke and jab" often malevolently but sometimes, merely in jest. They serve to strengthen the resolve and when there are the sillies about, maybe it's good to look at the Wikyworld and not be too serious about it. What is being done is remarkable and already has become a reference source that has to be at least considered alongside other sources. It may never arise to the standard of a peer-reviewed, authoritative work, but the input of so many experts must, at least, give rise to a new electronic guide to the future. FWWI Bzuk (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Hi - I noticed your revert on the Runnymede on the Archie McKellar article which I originally put together, to which in your edit record you mentioned a discussion on the talk page. There is presently no discussion on this subject on the talkpage, so can I suggest you add one together with your reasoning, or this will continue to be an issue of add/revert. Best Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What discussion there is on the talkpage points out that the Runnymede Memorial is for RAF personnel with no known grave, rather than being a BoB memorial specifically. McKellar's grave is known, so of course he wouldn't be listed there. David Underdown (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you add that to the Archie McKellar page - other wise, what's the point of your edit summary? Less experienced editors just won't get it, and over a third of the edits here are from Anon's. You might know what you mean, and the rest of us may be able to figure it out - but think about the Anon's. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked at Talk:Runnymede, and can't see a discussion re your edit summary on Archie McKellar - can you explain where this discussion is located, other wise your revert is looking pointless? Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I really appreciate your assistance. Does the ODNB entry profile Harington's character? My understanding of him is improving, to a degree. But he does appear to have been a contradictory character, and that will demand so much to illustrate reliably ;-). He despairs at the staggering loss of life, appears to have been compassionate and prepared to express himself emotionally at a time when I can't imagine it was convention for so senior an officer (is that a terrible, erroneous misconception?), and was a strong supporter of army education. Certainly an astute, capable, arguably progressive, officer and competent diplomat when required. But there is a stark contrast so evident in his autobiography and various published sources, revealing aspects of his personality more consistent with an archetype product of the 19th Century: Avowedly imperialist, anxious to defend the British Empire, in certain respects politically naive and with a discernable black and white perception of the world. I suppose I'm in danger of judging him from a 21st Century perspective? Of course he also didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Meh. Still, the article has the potential to be at least a candidate for A-class. Objective, neutral prose shouldn't be particularly challenging. SoLando (Talk) 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind me replying here? That corresponds with his autobiography. The chapter in his autobiography detailing his experiences as Governor of Gibraltar are yet again contradictory; he refused to repatriate Spanish refugees, even when concerns were raised that their continued presence could cause an epidemic, because he believed they would be in jeopardy were they to be returned, and yet appears to have wanted to maintain cordial relations with Franco because he wanted to hunt across the border! I'm endeavouring to convince myself that he did not have fascist sympathies. I'm more inclined to believe the sentiment to be more the result of naivety, if not total ignorance of 1930s politics/ideology, than conscious intent

There's an entire chapter dedicated to TOC H, which Harington strongly supported on the urging of Plumer. Harington discussed his relative disadvantages compared to his affluent counterparts, but insists in one passage that he never regretted being effectively excluded from more typical pursuits of an early 20th Century officer. He discusses his sporting interest extensively and appears to have valued its "application" throughout his career. There are some interesting, nay unnervingly amusing, anecdotes about a woman named Odette Keun, whom he alleged intended to assasinate him and, after reconsidering, demanded reimbursement for the sum of money she had dispensed with to purchase the pistol! Have you read Harington's autobiography? It's available to download here. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for identifying the mother and ce'ing the article! The parenthetical noting of Timothy Harrington's surname being rendered with a double-r is perplexing; is its purpose to preempt the possibility of an unknowing editor "correcting" the surname? The tone and appearance is somewhat awkward and vague, but that's liable to be considered subjective ;-). Would you have any objection, however, to converting it into a note or hidden comment? Regards, SoLando (Talk) 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On 24 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Graham Charles Chadwick, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your good work here, as well as at William Peyton! Xn4 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Khan was particularly tricky due to the multiple renderings of his name, I may well have missed some. I've put the search results up on talk:Osmond Barnes, but don't really have time to sort them out at the moment. Hopefully the example of the other two might be enough for you to have a crack. On a realted note, I have seen (somewhere) doubt cast on the reliability of Who's Who as a source, as there is no real checking of the subsmissions that subjects make. David Underdown (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Who's Who can be inaccurate, as it depends on the subjects' own information. Surprisingly, the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has come under attack for being full of errors - I've found quite a few myself. It's surprisingly slipshod in parts. (Of course, even the London Gazette can show inconsistencies - I'd already seen your note at Talk:Oliver De Lancey Sr.). Regards, Xn4 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure i've found a few dubious bits in the ODNB too, but at least there, they'll probably get corrected in teh end, articles are get either revised or completely re-written (there apears to have been a new release at the start of this year for example), whereas with the old Who's Whos, that't it. David Underdown (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another one is St. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney which is a Gothic revival building. It has a fantastic site, much better than St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney. Amandajm (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Both Liverpool Cathedrals could also be quoted, the Anglican Cathedral is some way off (I rememebr being told that it happens to face where the sun rises on Christmas Day, which since it's dedicated to Christ the King is quite appropriate), and the Catholic Metropolitan cathedral arguably doeesn't have an real orientation at all since it's roughly circular, with the sanctuary in the middle... I feldt coventry was a good example since with the presence of the old catehdral, it's obvious they can't both be pointing the "right" way, whereas in most otehr cases you'd need a map or compass to realise. David Underdown (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your London Gazette citations here, too. I started to look for her MVO and somehow couldn't find it... I did better with Osmond Barnes, but I still couldn't find anything about his being mentioned in despatches. regards, Xn4 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for correcting the name as given in the London Gazette. I can't access that citation today, as this computer has 'compatibility problems' with the .pdf files at the gazettes-online site, but I believe you and I've made it "Alexander [sic] Shân..." Xn4 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You aren't aware of the history of this category. First off, the category "Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain", as of a week ago had always existed. It was trashed, and emptied by a vandal and speedily deleted by an admin who was unaware it had always been a category, because it was empty. I simply restored what was there before. As for the templates, I'm all ears. I have merely edited both existing templates, but they are in major need of revision. All I did was fix all the links. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Similar issues with the Roman Catholic Dioceses in the Caribbean. Each of the articles have different subcats depending on their Geography. For example, all but the Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands have the tag "Antilles Episcopal Conference". Of the members in the Antilles Episcopal Conference all but 4 are "Roman Catholic Dioceses of the Caribbean, the exceptions being Belize, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. All but three are in North America, while 3 are in South America. So to spell it out, most of the dioceses in the Caribbean, except for the 10 exceptions have the following tags, Dioceses in North America, Dioceses in the Caribbean, Dioceses in the Antilles Episcopal Conference. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have the tags, Dioceses in North America, Dioceses in the Caribbean, and Dioceses in the USCCB. The Belize diocese just has the tags Dioceses in the Antilles episcopal conference and Dioceses in North America. Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana all have tags Dioceses in the Antilles episcopal conference, and Dioceses in South America.

This results in 5 categories. Dioceses in the Caribbean, Dioceses in the USCCB. Dioceses in South America, Dioceses in North America, Dioceses in the Antilles episcopal conference.

The situation with Great Britain is relatively simpler. 1. Dioceses in Great Britain. It serves as the national category. It could become Dioceses of the UK, but there are no catholic dioceses in Northern Ireland so Great Britain is the proper term. 2. Dioceses in England and Wales. This represents the episcopal conference. We could rename the category to dioceses in the episcopal conference of England and Wales. Then we have the scottish dioceses which are the dioceses of the episcopal conferences of Scotland. As for the templates, we could just use the one and delete the great britain template, it's not that big an issue. But the category tags should stay. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about doing as you suggested. Look at the cat tags at the bottom of the articles now. They say "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain" and "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Scotland" or "Category:Roman catholic dioceses in England and Wales." If we do as you suggest, it will only have the one category at the bottom "Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Scotland" or "Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales". If you look at all the other Catholic diocese articles they state both the episcopal conference AND the national body, with a greater explanation for unusual exceptions "Constanz" being one of them where the borders don't overlap. That's why I went the greater length of doing as I did. As for "Roman Catholicism" you should have seen these categories before I started working on them! The diocese cats only look nice because I try to keep them that way. The diocese cats have a very strict, and empirical standard, which is much easier to enforce then the grab-bag of "Catholicism in the Great Britain". I'm on the side of accuracy, I'd rather have more categories then too few, where there is an important distinction that needs to be made. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at my lists List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe. How have I organised that? The structure is reflected in it but due to the overall structure of the category: "Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe" each state has a subcat. That's why they have a Great Britain article. Like I said, the structure was a mess before I got there, but there was always a parent category for Great Britain. The way it used to be is that there was no distinction made between existing dioceses, Anglican dioceses, defunct dioceses or between england and scotland. It was all together and dumped in the great britain category. So I sorted between defunct dioceses, moved all of the articles to Roman Catholic dioceses, removed the anglican ones, which were moved to where they were appropriate. Then I did the split and populated the scotland and the england and wales category Until this recent fiasco the Great Britain category was always populated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, which is what happened with the Antilles Episcopal Conference. It became a better navbox then a category, because it linked together a whole bunch of articles that do have similarities which hadn't been done before. Here's what I suggest we do. We do as you suggest by keeping only the lower level cats, but we only have one navbox, with England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. What do you think? I think this better reflects Catholic history which in the British Isles has a huge influence from Ireland. I also didn't know you were CoE. You have to understand that there is a big difference in Catholicism, Nationalism isn't nearly as paramount as it is in the CoE and the CoS and the CoI. Please keep that in mind. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

no catholic dioceses in Northern Ireland so Great Britain is the proper term. This kind of utter nonsense and your belief in it is the only problem wikipedia has on this matter. Doubtlessly the Archbishop of Armagh and the suffragans of his province would be quite shocked to find out they weren't presiding over catholic dioceses. Great Britain does not exist either as a state or a national division of the Roman Catholic church. It's England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland ... which also ignores the United Kingdom. The latter one could possibly argue for, but why double up on existing categories and templates even if it is useful to point out that all of England and Wales and Scotland, and nearly a third of Ireland, lies within the UK? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Saw your note on the talk page. I'm the principal writer of the Military of the DRC article, and I visited Kew last year to see what they had - military attaches' reports for the late 60s and e70s, mostly. Is there anything else available that you can see beyond that? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou David. That sort of material would actually go in the Force Publique article, covering the Belgian Congo's armed forces. Military of the DRC covers post 1960 material. But thanks anyway and I'll see what I can incorporate. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to discover that the rank of a decorated NCO is not recognised by Wikipedia. I shall have to rethink making any further contributions. Thank you. 'Arry Boy (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your relpy. Yes, what your'e saying makes sense and is indeed consistent with other articles. Thank you for your time and explanation. 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks very much for fixing the London Gazette refs at Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll. I didn't know there was a London Gazette template so that's going to be helpful in the future. Again, thanks, and best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 16:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, David, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

Hi, I liked the edits you just made on this page. I was wondering though, how is one meant to click on the link to the London Gazette? When I do - the page kind of opens but no real text is displayed. Also, a wordpad document downloads - but it just displays gibberish when I try to open it (it's in a weird file format). How can I read the original text in the link? Many thanks:) Malick78 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Windows said it couldn't open the file format because it was unknown - so I just forced it to open it in Acrobat - and it worked. Is there anyway you know of that we can get the page to open straight away though? Thanks. Malick78 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please remove the full stop at the end of the template so refs. like Under the New Towns Act 1965 (1965 cap.59) cf. The Peterborough Development Corporation (Transfer of Property and Dissolution) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1410), see the London Gazette: no. 44377, page 8515, 01 August 1967., which states that the designation was made on 21 July 1967 read properly. The template output London Gazette: no. 44377, page 8515, 01 August 1967. is not a sentence anyway. Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to actually DISCUSS that DELETION rather then having it immediately trashed. You have a problem with it we can talk about solutions. I get very pissed off when the cat gets emptied and deleted WITHOUT DISCUSSION. I was unaware you supported that deletion of the category Great Britain, because there was NO DISCUSSION, just DELETION. That bothers me greatly. It shows lack of respect for contributors here. I was willing to discuss ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS. DELETION OF GB Category outright is NOT a solution. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/gb.html, this is one of the primary resources used in ALL the diocese articles and they use Great Britain. Why is this such a problem? Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please got to the Cat page before emptying out the cat again? If you want to empty it then nominate for CFD. Don't just empty it. You do NOT have consensus to empty that out. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Take it to CFD then. If I'm wrong it will come out there. The CAT existed for ages before you even cared about it. You should at least thank me for shining on a light that none of you really care about except there is now an editor who is trying to improve the pages. You had 3 chances to show that you actually cared about the cat and you did nothing about it when Deacon deleted it. So don't give me the bull that you are willing to keep the cat as a placeholder. I'll say it again, all of you guys need to take it to CFD. I am tired of you guys running roughshod over the wikipedia rules and then blaming me as disruptive. Don't you think Deacon is being just a bit disruptive when he nominates the cat for speedy deletion 3 times without discussion? Where's your gibes about being disruptive then? Hmmm? I'd like a thank you for restoring the categories if you truly care about them.Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about your argument for awhile now, when I'm not too busy restoring the category from Deacon's unhelpful edits. I would be happy to discuss that with you once the TFD and the CFD are sorted out. Please, I understand your point, just it's moot if the Category ends up deleted. First we have to establish that the category will stay, then we can discuss what it ought to contain. Surely you understand my point? As for the relationship of category-subcategory, they aren't really parent daughter. The first one is the state which the Category belongs, and the second is the episcopal conference. The two aren't really the parent and the daughter. I think this is an exception to the subcat/cat relationship because they aren't really subcat/cat. Deacon brings up an excellent point. The Archdiocese of Armagh is in the Ecclesiastical conference of Ireland, but it is also in the United Kingdom (at least part of it). This is the problem. If we rename it to "Roman Catholic diocese of the United Kingdom" then Armagh goes in there too, because it is part of the territory of the united kingdom. However, it will not be a part of either the ecclesiastical conference of scotland and the ecclesistical conference of england and wales. Is my point clear here? Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The category isn't my creation. Like I said, the only reason it's Great Britain is because that is what the Vatican uses in their source, which is the primary category that we use for all the diocese articles. I am fine with renaming the category, but you have to understand if that happens, then we will have to move Armagh in. You see my point? To be consistant with all the others, we have to move that one in because it is consistant with the state. I know it's a fiction in the eyes of the church, it's just all the categories in the "roman catholic dioceses" correspond to the states. Technically there shouldn't be a Swiss one (because all of their dioceses are immediately subject), but it's there anyways. All of these categories are conveniences for the user in grouping common information together to help them find all the articles. I realise it isn't as neat or tidy as you might like it, but so far, the articles are much more travelled then they were just awhile ago, because people can find them and there is a consistant nomenclature. I've done this for many, many articles, the only one that's been a hassle is Great Britain, and ONLY since Deacon did his little spree. That's why I'm a bit frusterated here. So much heat is on these articles, and meanwhile, Poland goes from 5 articles to 30, with a list and everything, no problem. Germany gets all their articles done and split from the HRE articles. Why is Great Britain so special? Anyways, until this gets sorted with Deacon, I'd like you to leave the categories as they are. Then we can make progress on them. Can I ask this of you? And no, I'm not a Brit. That's why I'm neutral ground on this issue. I have no stake in any of this either pro or con. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking out what I had. Italy I haven't touched because of size. Your point is well taken, just I haven't had time to fix up Italy. I had planned to tackle Italy after France, but you folks have kept me a mite busy. Like I said the project is much much larger, and GB is just the tip of the iceberg. I am working on France which thankfully doesn't have those problems. I understand that Scotland has become more separate lately, but until they are de facto independent as Ireland is, then the cats should remain as they are. When they are independent then the split will be made. Agreed? Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they are there now. I'll fix that, and apologies. Deacon must have taken them out again. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are looking at the wrong source. That is just the website for the episcopal conference of England and Wales. The Annuario Pontificado is the source you need to use for the structure of the Catholic church, and that's the one that Catholic Hierarchy uses. Yes the diocese website is more accurate for diocese facts, but the Annuario Pontificado for the structure of the Catholic church. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We were having a good discussion, and then you went behind my back and deleted my list. Do you know how long it took for me to make that list? It took me an hour. That is what hurt my feelings the most. You deleted content I added to the wikipedia. Did you not notice that I added lists of bishops? You deleted that. I thought you were better then that David. Please, don't revert content. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are getting what you want, what are you so upset about? Nominated for deletion. That's what you want isn't it? I'm tired of this end run that you and Deacon are doing around wikipedia procedure, so it ends here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've nominated my Template, which you didn't like and gave me grief over, I've nominated the entire Category for deletion. I've nominated the List for deletion. That's three. Good luck saving them David. I've done my job here. Sayonara. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You? I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see that fundamentally we are in opposition. I'm just arguing for one additional level of categorisation under GB to better reflect the day-to-day organisation of the Church there. I've just asked user:Philip Trueman for some input, he's an English Catholic, so can possibly explain the situation better than I can (it so happen I know him outside Wikipedia too). I think I'll ask user:Lima as well as he's always semed very knowledgeable on Catholic matters. David Underdown (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. I am particularly interested in Derbyshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland so your info is quadrupally useful. I am grateful to you for going to the trouble to contact me. I try to link the High Sheriffs with their family seats, listed buildings ,family history, Baronetcies etc as I progress so I think you have provided me with sufficient material to keep me going for quite a while. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ordyg (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out. Yes I have just understood that the use of not archive is to avoid publishing the whole detail. I think that I may have it now and as you say will only include the actual page of the LG for the earlier entriesOrdyg (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine , thanks for that Just one more thing - is the access date strictly necessary? After all the published LGs are never going to be changed and I am not clear what is added by its inclusionOrdyg (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See User:Rich Farmbrough/Article lists/Gazette. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46 8 February 2008 (GMT).

I see that today you added three references from the London Gazetteer to the James Blunt article. I also note that two of the three references are resulting in pages saying "An unexpected error occurred while processing your request. Please try again." As I am trying to get this article to GA within the next 24 hours, and the existing references confirm the information as currently written in the article, I am going to remove these links temporarily until we can figure out why they aren't connecting properly. Incidentally, when I use the search function and enter the issue and page numbers you have indicated, the information *does* come up. I can't see any obvious difference between the one link that works and the two that do not. I'm going to put the links on the talk page of the article and indicate why I've removed them, and link to this message as well. Thanks for adding the information, though, that was a reference source I had never thought of! Risker (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deacon's back at it. Want to give me a hand here? Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You just drove away an editor.

I worked hard on those lists, and you are throwing them away in the garbage. You are violating Wikipedia principles about deleting content for what?

lol: Well you get what you always wanted. Goodbye David. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

David, I apologize ... my blanking of the list on Roman Catholic Diocese of Northampton was an accident. Thanks for fixing! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a state, so I see no reason why a category like that shouldn't exist (preferably not called "Great Britain" though), so long as it doesn't intervene between categories and thus confuse users. If these expert users bring information which suggests the contrary though, I will have no problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been very busy today. Only now have I had a look at the Talk page you directed me to. Perhaps I am too tired to understand the problem. I take it that we can speak of the Roman Catholic Church in any territory whatever, whether the territory is a state or a region comprising several states (West Africa, Europe, Latin America ...), or an area covered by a single bishops conference (take the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea, or the case of the Irish state plus the part of the United Kingdom known as Northern Ireland), or only a part of a state (whether it has an episcopal conference of its own or not), or even a town or some tiny island. Whether it is worthwhile in concrete cases to dedicate an article to the matter is another question, and I don't think it possible to lay down general rules. Lima (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, which seems to indicate that the category in question should be "Catholic bishops conferences", rather than "The Roman Catholic Church in ..." A "Catholic bishops conferences" category would have the limitation that bishops conferences are, strictly speaking, matters only of the Latin Rite (although there are some mixed-rite conferences). There are cases where there is no strict correspondence between the bishops conference and the nunciature/apostolic delegation. The Irish episcopal conference is, as you say, a case where the president, traditionally the Archbishop of Armagh, lives in an area where the nuncio who deals with conference matters acts, strictly speaking, as an apostolic delegate. I presume that in Ethiopia+Eritrea it is still the Addis Ababa-based papal representative who deals with conference matters, although, since the refusal of Eritrea to accept representatives based in the Ethiopian capital, it is the nuncio in Khartoum who is accredited to the government of Eritrea. You have a similar situation for the nuncio in Wellington, who, as Apostolic Delegate for the Pacific, deals with Church matters in the French and US Pacific territories. And there are several more similar cases. Lima (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick, let's delete the front page!

No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm rewriting an article here and using the LG template. However, when I click on the link, an error page appears. Could you take a look and explain what I'm doing wrong? :) Sorry to be a bother. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aah, I see. I had a feeling that there was something more to the page number than what I was doing! Thanks very much. PeterSymonds | talk 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need 14 references to the fact that somebody was gazetted Lord Commissioner of the Admiralty?Cutler (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, still looks like a long list. We need a citation that he held the position but that's available in any bio. I accept that the links are of interest and legitimate links for the article but I'm not sure we've found the best way of doing this. I shall reflect.Cutler (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding "listed" to st leonards church on dyk reffing IS appreciated. Note I had to add a ref to Sir James Lithgow, 1st Baronet to make it an on-line cite for DYK... Victuallers (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks from me (writer of the article) as well. When writing Brighton & Hove church articles, I can normally find "listed" status on the Diocese of Chichester website and/or the "A Church Near You" site — but when the church in question hasn't loaded its details on the site, it makes life difficult! Good work on finding a ref, therefore. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very useful website indeed — thanks again. I've had a very quick browse of Hove and have already found lots of info about several churches I'm planning to write about. Excellent! Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The page you made is really wonderful as the London Gazette search engine is extremely slow, unreliable and user-unfriendly. I did search the Gazette for once or twice in the past but I soon gave up because I simply could not find where each year's Honours Lists are located.

With your Honours Page, I can use Who's Who to find out the "years", and use your page to find out the "dates". I wish your page will be completed in a short time! --Clithering (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this command to cease "is -> iz" conversions global for all of wikipedia or merely when dealing with british articles?

At least half of the articles I amended even had internal inconsistencies, with the same word spelled two different ways. Consistency, at least, is something IMHO should be valued at least in an article. (cites 14.10.1 Consistency within articles)

Also, Webster's online dictionary cites "is" as incorrect.

Anyway, I went back and double checked. Half of my edits were on pages where "iz" form was well established, and my edits merely amended a few exceptions to that pattern. The other half, like on Windows NT and McDonalds, dealt with very much American institutions, and accordingly should reflect american spelling...much on the same grounds that my recent "organizations" move was criticized.

Shentino (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have been kind enough not to revert my edits, and that you stuck by your word. I owe you a huge apology. I was re-reading wikipedia subcat policy and you are correct. I am sorry for being so difficult, just I have been frusterated by Deacon's edits. I looked over what you changed, and you did not touch the bishop lists I added. You were careful enough to change only what you felt needed to be changed. This is why I came back. I decided to see what happened, and I was very thankful for your actions. You've got what you wanted. Now I just need your help to make it stick. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. Deacon isn't happy, he decided to start insulting me, and he's been very obnoxious. I don't think accusations of "meatpuppet" are at all appropriate. Please check it out when you get a moment. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In spite of my ranting to the contrary, I appreciate you're pointing out the issues. Shentino (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

re footnote 5 London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 48346, page 14607, 20 October 1980.

I am newbie and instead of correcting the reference I am asking for assistance. Why was the superfluous reference of (Supplement) added and the correct page number of 14608 changed to 14607. Why does the link point to the wrong page. Have you changed the correct date of 21 October 1980 to 20 October 1980 or have you dropped 21 October 1980 and the reference to 20 October 1980 refers to the link to the LG website. Things such as supplements and gazette numbers should be discussed in the article on the London Gazette but to find an entry in the London Gazette all you need is the date and page.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I have some further questions on my talk page.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I tended to find that when I linked the years someone would come around and unlink them, and when I didn't, someone would come around and link them. I decided that my response would be not to cry foul in either case, and assume that hopefully 50% of the people who came were happy with what they saw, and if any of the 50% who came along decided they weren't happy and felt strongly about, they would change it round and the other 50% could have a spell at being happy. I might go back to linking them again. Perhaps its time for the other 50% to be happy. Though to be honest I doubt that it is anywhere near 50% that puts the year first. Such a silly notion. Maybe they don't deserve to be happy.

As to the Your Archives project, it sounds interesting, but at the same time somewhat flawed. On the one hand, they share the same aim as wikipedia (write full and comprehensive articles from a variety of sources). This is all well and good, but why split that information? For example I notice that the site has no article about the battle of Trafalgar. It's taken a long time to get wikipedia's coverage to where it is now, I can't see this really going anywhere fast at this rate. The advantage over wikipedia would be if the project were gathering official contributors, with full academic oversight in order to create reliable and reputable articles. But instead they seem to want people just to log on and write them themselves. If they want to do that, why not do so on wikipedia? It destroys the notion of it being academically reliable. In the end the aim of both projects is to create a full, complete and comprehensive history of 18th century British warships. And when that's done, what would be the point of having two websites with the same information with the same reliability? It appears to me that this project would be better off encouraging everyone to rush off to wikipedia to expand the existing articles (there are already huge numbers of them) and writing new ones, rather than trying to duplicate each other's ultimate goal. It's all rather odd, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can you enlighten me? Cheerio, Benea (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to have timed this badly. I also note that you have put the year first when writing your date. tut tut. Benea (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I was working on another page and copied the wrong citation! --MJB (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the point about the number of bells, David. I have found a source which explains my error in the article: the two bells hung in 1742 were themselves replaced by the eight referred to in your source, in 1880. I will edit the article accordingly. Thanks again! Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding, that "strictly correct terminology" should always be used in an Encyclopaedia, irrespective of how many times it is repeated. It is totally incorrect to use synonyms when refering to rank. One cannot be made, be given or be awarded "an" MBE, it is an appointment to that rank within the order. One cannot be given "a" Sargeant, one is appointed to that rank. Thank you. 'Arry Boy (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your very interesting message. It never ceases to amaze me how such a simple thing manages to confuse so many people, even the BBC are not adhering to their own style guide [5] 'Arry Boy (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear David,

Thank you very much for updates to Carl Bechstein. Nice. Whenever you have a chance to stop a the Harrods piano department, do not hesitate to ask for that book of records; I remember some records in it do mention piano sales to Queen Victoria and other royal customers. BTW their staff mentioned a piano sold to Princess Diana, it was a Steinway & Sons model C-227, and it was sold again in the 2000s at a charity auction. Thank you again for updates and discussion. Steveshelokhonov 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it should be as Fleet Air Arm officers will be incorrectly classified Kernel Saunters (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Three options here as I see - 1). Keep aces as a nationality based cat and remove the RAF cat, 2). Regard this as a British military type cat (qualifying criterion is to be an ace in the British Military) and create four subcats for RNAS/RAF/Fleet Air Arm/RFC aces or 3). Leave things. My preference would be 2, nice and exact and no room for interpretation. What do you think? Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you took part in the discussion at "Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 21#Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals" where it was proposed that the templates {{Infobox church}}, {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} be merged. I've created a prototype merged template for discussion at {{Infobox church/sandbox}}. The documentation for the template is at Template:Infobox church/doc. Your comments and help with improving the template are welcome – please discuss the matter at the Infobox church talk page.

If everyone is happy with {{Infobox church/sandbox}}, then {{Infobox church}} can be replaced with that template and the templates {{Infobox churches and cathedrals}} and {{Parish church}} nominated for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you certain that the Order of St John did not confer post nominals? I have seen KStJ used on a number of inscriptions here in Canberra, including Blamey's. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the ethnicity reference. I was going to do it this morning. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos, I dunno what it is, but I cannot for the life of me type correctly at the moment. It's weird, I've made six seven slip ups in this very messasge! SGGH ^speak! 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have days like that too - though it always seems to affect my talk page posts more than article writing. David Underdown (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been all flippin' week. Can't be medical though, my bass playing has been top notch! Maybe my mind is just too used to playing that at the moment. OR perhaps it is becauseI am used to using my laptop, not this computer. Who knows, but anyway thanks again for clearing up for me. Only one typo in this message! Dammit, now two... three.... SGGH ^speak! 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't EVEN SPOT the "messasge" one in my first message. DAMMIT! SGGH ^speak! 18:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in spite of your revert of the edit by The Hermes, she / he has come back and had inserted the 'legal status' back. I reverted it again. He keeps coming on and on. I don't know what his problem is. He is fond writing that the Senate of Serampore College (University) and its affiliated colleges are fake. Kindly keep a watch on Senate of Serampore College (University) and its affiliated colleges found in the same article.

You may also have seen the debate (actually it was useless to argue with him) between me and him (please see the discussion page of that user). Pradeep (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know that. I shall remove it if you haven't already. Your wiki-knowledge is once again appreciated. SGGH ^speak! 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I enlist your support to reverse what I think is a bad deletion? Yesterday I was researching an anglican archbishop who had been a curate at St George's Hanover Square. It seemed a resonable article, and today I find it deleted. This is possibly one of the most well known Anglican places of worship in the world. What do you think?

Bashereyre (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone moved it to St George's Mayfair - I have taken the liberty of correcting the situation; and placed a note on the talk page indicating that such moves should be discussed beforehand. I hope that is satisfactory. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for the copyediting [6], I don't suppose you saw the request on WP:LOCE/R, or were u just browsing? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well cheers anyway pal ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good CE, cheers ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Ryan4314 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry Howard would have been High sherrif of Cumberland not Cumbria in 1834 as the post of High Sherrif of Cumbria did not exist until 1974

I have created a page for the High Sherrif of Cumberland and have included Henry Howard and the refeence to the Gazette on it I regret Howard is the only person on the list as I know of no others without doing research Penrithguy (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Douglas Alexander Graham, 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.

--Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. WP colloboration at its best. Woody (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		I Woody do hereby award David Underdown for all the work and effort you put into checking and verifying London Gazette links. This is on top of all the help you give in improving articles, work exemplified in the cleanup of Douglas Alexander Graham. Thankyou for all your work. Woody (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected :) --SGGH ^speak! 14:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

... and see that someone's been busy with William Thomas Havard! Great stuff! Can I hire you to improve all my stubs, please?! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the LG for fleshing out biographies in that way, save as an obvious references for honours (when I can persuade the search engine to work!) I'll remember it in future. Yours chorally, Bencherlite^Talk 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That honours page is very useful, and has helped me find a 1925 knighthood I was looking for (I'm going through a spell of creating articles about people connected with Jesus College, Oxford, and it's hard to track them down when all you know is that they're called "D.W. Evans"...) In return, if it's of any use to you, my work library has copies of Joseph Foster's Alumni Oxonienses and Venn's Alumni Cantabrigienses, so if you'd like references checked, I'll see what I can do for you! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. You made an edit in this article stating "we're talking about organisation at higher levels here", however the article is not really so defined, so it seems to me that organisation of a ship's crew falls within the parameters of the article. In fact if you consult the chart in the section ==Hierarchy of modern navies== you will find a mention of a single vessel as the smallest element of the naval organisations as a unit. However, the crew constitute its sub-units, and these can be substantial on the larger vessels, requiring complex organisational systems.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Argghhhhhhhhh!! ;) Can you not edit this for a bit please, I have just edit conflicted with you, so I need to integrate my changes with yours. Thanks. Woody (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You saved me looking for all the Gazette links! Regards. Woody (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Woody (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks great thanks. I was working off Ashcroft at the moment and trying to remove the dependency on dubious web sources. Woody (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with the references from the Gazette and for you advice concerning Eric William Wright. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^T | _C 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Gazette references to the above article. It is much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, regarding your rv to David Urquhart, please try to to not restore copyright-violating images when making reverts or edits. The fact the image (now deleted) was a violation was noted in my edit summary. As far as articles on religious figures go, I'm happy to defer to those with greater knowledge of the subject, as long as the pages are formatted and presented correctly. Cheers, Deiz talk 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I looked at it and thought, "Mmmm. Gotta do that." Then I groaned and thought: "Yeah. Later." Good stuff. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"he was already a company Co before that posting in any case"
Hmmm. I missed that one. Thanks for fixing it.
I'm guessing you're referring to "Evans commanded a parachute rifle company in the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, for two years prior to his attendance at Australian Command and Staff College in 1988."? Or are you basing it on other information?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. It had bugged me slightly before, and with the quote of the citation that was added, it became more obvious that the wording wasn't quite right. I assume that in the Aussie army,. as in the British Army, Company OCs are Majors anyway? David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"I assume ... " - Yes. And regiment COs are Lieutenant Colonels. Is that the same as in Britain? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in articles related to the Senate of Serampore College (University) and its affiliated colleges on the wikipedia, namely:

• United Theological College
• Karnataka Theological College
• Gurukul Lutheran Theological College
• Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College
• Andhra Christian Theological College
• Serampore College

are regularly being reverted by a user called The Hermes (please see history pages of these colleges). Degrees granted by this University are also accepted by even the University of Cambridge[7].

Please can you seen that this disruptive user is blocked ?

Thanks. --Pradeep (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up the page of this nearly forgotten hero still further. Albatross2147 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again for fully referencing the knighthoods etc in one of my creations (William Glanville), it is much appreciated. If you're interested I have listed other articles I have created which are in need of Gazette references at User:Dumelow/Sandbox2. I will try to gradually work through them but honours are not my speciality and it may take me a while, please feel welcome (but not obligated!) to help out. I would be grateful for any reference you could find. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and advice, much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for your help. If you get a chance could you take a look at Bloody Sunday? It's another article I rescued but it hasn't seen any attention from anyone else so I fear the prose is languishing at my level for lack of attention. Again, thanks for the edits. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello :) I'm considering setting up a Falklands war task force on wikipedia and noticed you've edited the subject quite a bit. Would you consider joinin the group if I go ahead and create it? Thanks, --Tefalstar (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for reverting that edit to my userpage. My good faith in that user has been completely exhausted. If he persists in editing, he's definitely going to be blocked. I honestly despair when it seems Wikipedia's magnetic appeal to idealogues empowered by anonynimity has no intention of ebbing. Gah. Thanks again. Oh, I've really neglected Charles Harington Harington of late. It would benefited from having a well-motivated editor *hint hint* ;-). SoLando (Talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'd seen some of his rants on your talk before. On Harington, I don't really have access to the range of sources you do, and I know I find it much harder to try to expand an already written article, rather than starting from scratch. David Underdown (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's fine. I rarely "finish" an article; always distracted and attracted to other subjects. I'm now focusing on Billy Liddell just to assuage related distress ;-). I really hope we can collaborate on Harington (or some other article) in the future. Once more, thank you! Regards, SoLando (Talk) 23:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

link ranks on first mention - Ta, nice to have some help!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear David, I don't understand the essential difference between these two articles. Probably they both mean the same. Can you please explain? Best --Weissmann (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The images, and files concerned were tagged because although they do thenakfully have a detailed rationale, they didn't have a license tag. I wasn't sure which one to add, hence flagging them for the attention of more experienced editors.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this here since it seems more appropriate. There was a distinction, definitely; in fact the divide was huge. However, the term servant was being used in with its definition form (one who serves others) rather than its hierarchical form. Though Lady Ely and the Queen were companions, even friends, Lady Ely was a devoted servant (as well as attendant, companion et al.) But I see how it could cause confusion (dutiful though she was, by no means a scullery maid!). Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)