Indefatigable

Thank you very much for the recognition. The Louis Riel article itself is fairly mature; there's not to much left to add to it. But there are related articles that could be created or added to, such as details on Middleton's expedition, or details on the three columns he launched, from Qu'Appelle, Swift Current, and Calgary.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You changed Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders saying they never had a Col in Chief. Do the Royal Winnipeg Rifles? I haven't found any mention of it on their website: https://www.theroyalwinnipegrifles.com/ Cheers Adakiko (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

My edit comment on SD&GH was actually a mistake - Elizabeth II was their colonel-in-chief. I discovered my error shortly after the edit. But the edit itself was correct, as the regiment no longer has a colonel-in-chief. For the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, the King is their colonel-in-chief - this source confirms it. Indefatigable (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I did search without success. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Sorry, but you are incorrect. The term "environmental" is correct. It appears directly on page 1-1 of the correct CAF dress instructions, seen here. Please revert all changes making the incorrect change. oknazevad (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oknazevad, that's interesting. Yet on page 1-2 of the same document, it has "Distinctive Environment Uniform (DEU). Uniforms which identify ...". I was going by the HTML version of the same doc, which has "distinctive environment uniform" in its definition section, which I assumed would be the section that had been proofread most closely. I guess if the CF can't be consistent in its own documentation, we don't need to either. I'll do some reverts. Indefatigable (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Works for me. I know that "environmental" is far more widely used in outside sources as well, but since it's a technical term, the technical definition should be used. But apparently they are less than consistent themselves. oknazevad (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You changed United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom at British Arctic Territories. However, in 1880 when handover occurred the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did not come into existence until 1922. I see you did the same thing at Canada and Alaska boundary dispute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CambridgeBayWeather, I'll stop making those changes. In my opinion, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland should just be a redirect to United Kingdom - they are the same state, just with a slight name change. It's not like UKGBI dissolved at some point in the 1920s and was replaced with a new state UKGBNI with a new constitution. But I see that my view is not widely held here and that this kind of edit is not the correct way to change those two articles. But having those articles separate is as absurd as it would be to have Yukon and Yukon Territory separate articles because it changed name in 2002. 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) Indefatigable (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

They are different. They didn't just change the name the area occupied changed. Prior to 1922 the island of Ireland was one political unit governed by the British. After 1922 the island was divided and the Republic of Ireland became an independent country with Northern Ireland still being governed by the British. It's not just a name change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Thank you for your recent contributions to this article, I am very grateful for your assistance (plus the countless other times you've caught my grammar and formatting mistakes). I just have one concern about a change you made to the article. You removed the years from the following: "The unit finally left Notre-Dame-au-Bois on April 24 [1918], after being seen off by most of the villagers. They arrived in Canada in May [1919], and shortly thereafter demobilized in Toronto, Ontario."

I believe the years are important to keep, because according to Library and Archives Canada (page 27), the unit did not demobilize in Toronto until May 1919. By removing the years, I think the article implies that they moved off the (former) front in April 1918, and demobilized just one month later, rather than one year and one moth later. Would you object if I put the years back in those two spots?

All the best,

CplKlinger (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@CplKlinger: No objection at all. Since the passage about Notre-Dame-au-Bois comes after the mention of the Armistice, I assumed that the 1918 date for their arrival was an error and that 1919 was intended. So I changed that to 1919 and removed the year from the subsequent events that I assumed also happened in 1919. But if my assumptions are wrong, please put in the correct years on the dates. Indefatigable (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response, but I need to apologize. It has been a while since I read the article, and I misread the last paragraph. I forgot that I already wrote about their postwar experiences in Europe, and messaged you before realizing my error. You were correct in assuming that it was a typo. CplKlinger (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Military_police#Photographs Dreddmoto (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Indefatigable, thank you for all your hard work on Canadian units, especially cleaning up after LordHood2552. "Former" is not a term we use in WP military unit categories, but there was a clear break in the Canadian infantry in 1936, with a large-scale reorganization and reduction in the number of units. It's quite acceptable to subdivide a large category of over 20 members into subcats; this is the date I am considering. Your thoughts welcome - let's continue this process!! Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just seen that Canadiansoldiers.com makes the break at 1920. [1] Your thoughts welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Buckshot06 - The reorgs of 1920 and 1936 were both pretty major. If we can only choose one of those dates as the major dividing point in Militia history, it's tough to choose which one. However, it looks like the authors of Canadian Soldiers have already gone through the process and picked 1920. That may be good sign that 1920's the better milestone to pick. Indefatigable (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The category has now been created at Category:Infantry regiments of Canada until 1920. Feel free to help me move articles or doing some of the very-short-article merging as you will see I have been doing in my previous edits. Any articles under 36 kB with limited growth potential can be upmerged, in general accordance with WP:SIZERULE. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Indefatigable. I am reaching out to you having seen your work over decades. You are an experienced administrator who has built wiki with tolerance and compassion. I am a casual user. I occasionally make minor good faith revisions based on personal knowledge to clarify or enhance a topic of personal interest. Recently, I generated an editing war where a user has taken the view that the article Cadet Instructor Cadre was not sourced enough and deleted 26,236 of 30078 bytes that had been in place for years without concern. You are in the edit history as early as 2004. While I was not impolite, I was cheeky in my attempt to restore the item and was banned for a couple of days. While the article has some issues, it is a comprehensive source of correct information for parents, cadets and potential leaders not found elsewhere. In my view should be allowed to stand. Thank you for your attention and assistance. 24.69.169.21 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello: Your from Canada and the first down or downs in American Football has been recognized in other uses as the 1st n 10 yellow first down line, and again in the First down laser line systems. I posted it under the proper other uses title of first down or downs in Gridiron football. I’m not going to argue with you, but would like you to re post this important to the American Football down systems in other uses. I cited the facts and hope you can agree. Enoska13 (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Any discussion about the content of the article Down (gridiron football) should take place at Talk:Down (gridiron football). Indefatigable (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited North American railroad signals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Locomotive engineer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Red Deer, Alberta, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! Masterhatch (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apothecaries' system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southgate Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southgate LRT Station.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I notice you reverted an IP user who, in the article on Lunar calendars, changed BC to BCE. I, myself, had thought of putting a message on the User's Talk page; I thought of pointing out that in the absence of special considerations, BC and BCE are equally acceptable, and that the style guidelines say that we don't edit one to the other without reason.
But then I looked and found out that elsewhere, the article refers to CE. The guidelines also say we should be consistent in any one article. So I guess that IP person's edit was not wrong. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AzseicsoK, thanks for pointing that out. An article should be consistent. If the IP editor had used an edit summary explaining the intention, I would not have been so hasty. Indefatigable (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Mary & St. George Anglican Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Edmonton (Canada).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In a recent(ish) edit to 152nd (Weyburn-Estevan) Battalion, CEF you removed a link from the text 32nd Reserve Battalion to the article for 32nd Battalion, CEF. You left a comment saying that the two battalions are not related. However the article for the 32nd Battalion CEF says that that battalion was redesignated as the 32nd Reserve Battalion - ie the two are the same. Am I missing something? Cjrother (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're quite right; thank you for catching my error. I forgot that it wasn't uncommon for battalions to keep their number when converting to reserve battalions. Indefatigable (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Justin Trudeau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical assistance in dying.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @XRozuRozu! I'm normally a coffee drinker, but today I enjoyed an Earl Grey with a small dab of honey and a dribble of milk. Have a great weekend! Indefatigable (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply