User talk:DAFMM/Archive 2
Archive 1 (September 2008 - March 2009).
P. S. All posts are filled by their starting date (e. g. if a comment was posted in May and finished in July it is filed in May, but the conversation is only filed after it has finished).
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sir Thomas Cochrane, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Administrator[edit]
The tags I added to the article were not intended as criticism they are ways to help improve the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, articles can be written by one person or many but no one editor or group owns any of them. Maintenance tags alert editors to ways they can help improve an article, for example the {{uncat}} tag marks an article as uncategorised, making it more likely that an editor (possibly using the HotCat tool) will come along and add categories. The {{Stub}} tag just indicates that it's a stub class article which most articles are when they are created, some editors spend there time going through Category:Stubs trying to improve and flesh out such articles, the {{norefs}} tag indicates to readers and editors alike that the article could be improved by identifying and adding references that verify the information in the article. If you wish to write something that is - to a point - not as open to peer review and improvement by the community as a whole then I suggest you start articles as a user subpage - this process is explained at Wikipedia:User page#How do I create a user subpage? - basicly you create a page with "User:DAFMM/" in front of the intended title (e.g. User:DAFMM/Sandbox). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
N.: Sir John Deed.
The article 'Sir John Deed' was created at 18:09 on the 14th Aprlil 2009. In the three minutes it took for you to critisize the article I can't be expected to create a detailed article. Please give me and others time to build the article.
With compliments.
Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald[edit]
Hello DAFMM, I would like to explain why I have removed your addition of "Sir" before Cochrane's name at the start of this article. As far as I know, "Sir" is not used to address someone who is also a peer – the letters GCB after his name are adequate. Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage also advises that, "'Sir' is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight". Please do not continue to re-insert "Sir" without discussion first or at least an edit summary explaining your edits – it could be considered poor etiquette otherwise.
I have also noticed that you over-use wikilinks (linking plain words and the same word repeatedly within the same section). You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Linking which states "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section" and advises it is inappropriate to link "items that would be familiar to most readers". I hope this explains why I have removed some of your recent edits. All the best. BarretBonden (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. BarretBonden (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Redlinks[edit]
Have you read Wikipedia:Red link? 'The redlinked ships on the article George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith were unlinked so that the page could be tiied up. This is encouraged by Wikipedia.' No, that is not supported by any sort of policy on wikipedia, and appears to be only your own personal preference. I would suggest reading through relevant policy articles before deciding what it is that wikipedia does and does not encourage. Benea (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Red links[edit]
Hello DFMM. Please do not ignore the advice given to you by other editors. As suggested to you previously by Benea, please read Wikipedia:Red links before removing any more red links from articles. Red links should be removed if they link to articles that will certainly never be created, but a red link should be allowed to remain if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article. BarretBonden (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages[edit]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Also, when starting a new discussion, it should be placed it at the bottom of the page. Thank you! BarretBonden (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Right Honourable[edit]
From: Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald.
In Dabbler's edit at 17:47 on 24th April 2009 he says that because he was a Scottish peer. However, the article The Right Honourable on Wikipedia says that any "...barons, viscounts and earls..." in the peerage of the United Kingdom are entitled to it. This means that he was The Right Honourable Thomas Cochrane etc..
With compliments.
DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 25 April, 2009 (UTC).
- Just a guess – perhaps a peerage of Scotland is different to a peerage of the United Kingdom? Anyway, Manual of Style advises that honorific prefixes such as "The Right Honourable" should not be used. BarretBonden (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think though he did have The Right Honourable in front of his name.
With compliments.
DAFMM.—Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 May, 2009 (UTC).
Talk Pages[edit]
I always sign my edits on talk pages. I don't think I ever have not signed one. Where did you see it? Thanks. With compliments. DAFMM.
- You do not appear to be using the four tildes (~~~~) which will produce a link to your user page and talk page, and will allow other users to see the time and date when your comment was made. See Wikipedia:Signatures for more info. Also remember new discussions should be placed at the bottom of talk pages. Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. Thanks. I always sign my posts with a link to my user page. Also, where did you see it? With compliments.DAFMM (talk).
- I'm not sure you have quite got what I meant. I'm not saying you forgot to sign your post somehwere, just that you may find it easier to just type four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your posts which is standard practise and will also add a time and date which is useful for other users to see when the comment was made. Have a look here. Cheers. BarretBonden (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks then. With compliments. DAFMM (talk), 29th April 2009
[edit]
A rather eccentric editor