User talk:Captain Seafort

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

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

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

Bloody Sunday (1920)

Hi,

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

Demiurge 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Megapixie 01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seafort Saga/Seafort/Etc Pages

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

Finn

Stewart McPherson

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

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

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

Re: Nicholas Seafort

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

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

Finnegar 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seafort Saga

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

fictional military brats

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

Yes, I found it from the main article- I've read a few of Child's books so I decided to add Reacher in. As for the main page, it's very comprehensive, but as the note a the top comments its also very US-centric. I don't have anything like the academic knowledge to add the POV of other countries, but I'd suggest looking at the British military if you're going to, given that postings are often linked with off-base, rather than on-base, accommodation for families, maybe consider how that affects the mentality. Captain Seafort (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the thoughts... I'm probably going to add another section to the article because I've been investigating this weakness... and apparently, most of the funding for research into military brats has been from the US military. So I'll probably add a section discussing the research funding and why it is US centric and why the conclusions may not apply to non-US brats. I've also been told that British service members might move more while their families stay put...Balloonman 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midshipman's Hope

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

Siege of Bouchain

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

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

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

Chandler Marlborough as military commander p.288

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

Regeneration--Agreed!

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

Gurkha edit

Hi mate, this is just to advise you that one of your edits to the Gurkha article were reverted by a user with the edit summary 'vandalism'. Many of mine were too. To be honest, I am not very happy about this as I believe that my edits and the one you made to the image caption were constructive and the reversion actually makes the article worse. I have added a comment on the talk page requesting the user in question explain the reasons behind his revert. I mention this in case you feel that you might like to join the discussion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Faulconer Legion

The article Faulconer Legion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Derivative article of The Starbuck Chronicles, lacks sources and citation, and reasonable search for sources finds only casual mentions of the subject.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I included you in the prod warning because you are a primary contributor to the page. If you believe deletion would be a mistake, please feel invited to make a case in talk. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Midshipman's Hope

The article Midshipman's Hope has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced book article, all plot, with no claim to notability since 2009.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Captain Seafort. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Captain Seafort. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Captain Seafort. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nicholas Seafort

The article Nicholas Seafort has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this fictional character passes WP:GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minor characters in the Seafort Saga for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minor characters in the Seafort Saga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in the Seafort Saga until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]