User talk:Shem1805/Archive 6

Edits to HMS Doterel (1880)

Thank you for your valuable contributions to the page. I am not extremely knowledgeable about ships but am creating articles because there are many red links. Do you know a good place to find sources? In addition, what are the general notability requirements for articles about ships. I would assume that warships and ships that have been wrecked in some way would all be notable but am unsure beyond that. Thanks for the contributions and for any advice you can give me. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, I admired your good work on Doterel. For sources for 19th century RN ships, it's worth establishing the basic facts with Benyon and Davis. Phillips covers a slightly earlier period. None of these sites really meets the requirements of Wikipedia for reliable sources (see WP:SOURCES), at least not as the only sources for an article, but once you know what happened, then it's worth doing a Google search. This will often throw up books (which as often as not can be read online), newspapers and other sources that will make great sources. Of course, there's nothing to beat buying a few good reference books, if you have the funds and inclination.

If you're looking more widely at ships and shipwrecks in general, then there are a range of resources online which are very useful. naval-history.net, uboat.net and battleships-cruisers.co.uk have their uses, and for modern ships, digital-seas.com (free to register). Most of these are UK-centric, and if you want to look at (say) US ships, there are other sites to consider.

As for notability, I would suggest that if you can find reliable sources and the subject is interesting enough to write an article, then it's notable enough. Wrecks, especially with loss of life, will nearly always be notable. Royal Navy ships of any significant size will nearly always be notable. Doterel was notable on many fronts - widely reported in the contemporary press and the subject of several parliamentary questions, as well as significant loss of life and the loss of an RN warship in mysterious circumstances.

I would suggest that Doterel would make a good subject for DYK. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Did you know, and consider proposing the article - I would be delighted to help if you need it. Shem (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm going to create a subpage for this response so I can access it whenever I need it. As far as DYK is concerned, I actually nominated it last night. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely great minds think alike! Have you thought about an article on HMS Phoenix (1879)? She was the other casualty of the Doterel class, and I think there's a good wreck story there. Shem (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm already working on HMS Phoenix. HMS Phoenix (N96) that is. I have barely started the article and haven't even begun to include information about its sinking, but I found it slightly ironic that you suggested an article about a ship by the same name of one I was working on. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a funny old world. I've gone ahead and done HMS Phoenix (1879), partly because people will read it if Doterel goes to DYK (they follow the nav boxes - it's interesting to watch the page stats for the day a related article goes on the main page, you can see how people follow the links and navboxes). Shem (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

References to Winfield

I noticed that some of the references added to the article are to "Winfield". Is this a book? Do you have any more information? I would like to see that reference improved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, that's standard referencing technique. If you look below the citations you will find:

• Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555.

The "Winfield (2004) p.xx" allows you to (if necessary) reference several pages of a book without filling up the text with multiple copies of all the other publication details. Have a read of WP:CITESHORT. Shem (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. I actually had the problem of not not knowing what to do when I was referencing a book and this solved it for me. Question, should you create a template to transclude every time you want to do this with a book, or do you only do it if you know you will be using that book on multiple articles? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to create a template. {{winfield}} is used in a lot of pages! Shem (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively you can always contact me direct on my user page Rif Winfield (talk)! Rif Winfield (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ship questions

What do "Ordered", "laid down", "launched", and "commissioned" refer to? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ordered is the date the ship was ordered from the ship yard; laid down is the date of the keel laying, or equivalent, often there's a ceremony involved; launched speaks for itself - the date the ship entered the water; commissioned refers to the date that the navy officially runs the ship - accompanied by a ceremony (originally it was the day the new captain read his commission to the ship's company, the first day everybody got paid, and therefore the first day the ship was available for service); you may also see "completed" (merchant ships, for example, that don't get commissioned) and "in service", especially for modern warships that are run by the Navy before they have finished their trials and well before they are ready to deploy. Does that help? Shem (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of qualifications which should be attached to your definitions. Firstly, "ordered" can mean (and often does) the date upon which the Admiralty decides that is is going to place an order for a particular ship, rather than the date on which the contract is awarded to a particular shipyard (whether a naval dockyard or a commercial shipbuilder); this can be a fair number of days later, depending often upon the negotiations between the Admiralty or Navy Board and the commercial shipbuilders concerned. Secondly, "commissioned" doesn't mean the first date upon which the ship is "available for service". Often a ship is commissioned while some of the fitting-out is still going on, so that the commanding officer can 'take charge' of the process and keep an eye on the process until the ship is finally completed. This was particularly true in the sailing era, when a ship was commissioned soon after her launching, and was then fitted out for several weeks or even months (including installing her masts, and bringing stores and armament aboard). Rif Winfield (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rif. Shem (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Doterel (1880)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ryan Vesey/HMS Phoenix (N96)

I have gotten my article to the point that I believe it is ready for the mainspace but I was wondering if you could look over it. Maybe we can get another joint DYK. If you wanted to you could also look at Italian torpedo boat Albatros. I just created a very short stub in order to remove the red link that existed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at both articles. Clearly there is much that could be added, but my first comment would be on the quality of the sources. Phoenix relies heavily on website sources such as uboat.net, which is (for good or bad) not accepted as a reliable source. Some old-fashioned printed material might be appropriate. Shem (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some improvements of the referencing and added some more information I found using a google books search. I don't have access to a library, so I was wondering if you know of any more sources I should add before I move it. Otherwise, I will move it now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, please DO NOT include the pennant number of any pre-war British warship in the title of an article. Unlike the US Navy, where warships are issued with sequential hull numbers when they are ordered and retain those numbers throughout their life, in British (and other European) navies there are no hull numbers. The pennant numbers which were issued the ships were issued at random (using any number which happened to be available), and were often subject to variation; pennant numbers were in any case a fairly recent innovation, dating from the start of World War One, prior to which there were no numbers issued to British warships. Many smaller warships changed their number (and certainly the "flag superior" part of the pennant number (i.e. the alphabetical letter preceding the actual number), sometimes several times. The convention that has been agreed by Wiki editors for pre-1948 British warships is that the ships name is followed (in brackets) by the year of launch; the year of launch is thus used to distinguish between warships which have had the same name - for example, there have been sixteen British warships bearing the name HMS Phoenix, going back to the 16th century, of which your submarine was the last one; thus the launch date is used to distinguish between them, e.g. "HMS Phoenix (1929)", "HMS Phoenix (1911)", "HMS Phoenix (1895)", "HMS Phoenix (1879)", "HMS Phoenix (1832)", etc. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really name the article, I just followed a red link, but I am not necessarily true that your convention is correct. See HMS Phoenix (N42), HMS Medway (F25), HMS Parthian (N75), etc. For further discussion, please address me on my talk page. Thank you Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you help resolve this question?

In the article I created HMS Phoenix (N96) the question has arisen over whether the miles are normal miles or nautical miles. Can you help resolve this problem? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see the source for your figures is the Barrow Submariners' Association - hardly a verifiable source, more of a steer in the right direction. My feeling is that these figures must be nautical miles, since they're quoted alongside knots, not miles per hour. A better source would be preferable, but for the meantime, I'm quite happy that the figures quoted are correct, just not truly verifiable.

I've got a question for you; the newly added Google Books url for Doterel doesn't give the text of the book - how do you know what the text actually says? Do you have another source for it? I'd like to read the text - which should be available from Hansard - but I can't find it. Shem (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The source does give the text if you are talking about the one I just added. The URL I supplied contains a search for all appearances of the word "Doterel". Here is a more generic URL. Do you have any idea how to format the reference to make the title of the journal a link to the url? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the text - just the bare details. Can you cut and paste the relevant text here? To make the title appear as a link, you need a "|title=" field in the cite journal template. I'd have done it for you, but without the text, I don't know what the title is! Shem (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I am unsure why you can't see the text, I see it fine. I would copy and paste the text; however, it is a digital scan of the book. Nothing can be copied. Have you tried downloading the PDF? If you cannot receive it that way I think the only way is for you to send me an email. I will attach a pdf version of the document in my reply. By the way, I think the most applicable title would be "Reports from Commissioners, Inspectors, and Others". Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you paste the url of the PDF here? That might do it. I suspect every editor outside of the US gets what I get from the current reference - no text! That will be because of copyright issues at Google Books, I assume. Incidentally, the reference on the same article to the Journal of the American Chemical Society has the same problem. Shem (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot paste the url of the PDF. I would have done that originally. It downloads into Adobe. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It may take a while, but I can try to transcribe the relevant parts. The information is a government document from the British Parliament and was published almost 130 years ago. I should have no copyright problems with British Law right? It is in public domain in the United States. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is some relevant discussion here. I think providing me with your email will be the best way to go about this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, thanks for all this. I'm now sure that the issue is related to Google Books copyright status, and the location of editors. Don't transcribe anything! I've turned my e-mail on - please use it (you'll now find the link "e-mail this user" under toolbox). Either the stuff you're reading is a House of Commons debate, in which case it's available from Hansard - just let me know the date - or it's a parliamentary report, in which case just let me know the title of the report. Shem (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify, have you received the pdf? Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No - although it's been a hectic week. I've moved house, and there's no broadband here at the moment! I suggest you e-mail it again, if you haven't done so already. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, please DO NOT include the pennant number of any pre-war British warship in the title of an article. Unlike the US Navy, where warships are issued with sequential hull numbers when they are ordered and retain those numbers throughout their life, in British (and other European) navies there are no hull numbers. The pennant numbers which were issued the ships were issued at random (using any number which happened to be available), and were often subject to variation; pennant numbers were in any case a fairly recent innovation, dating from the start of World War One, prior to which there were no numbers issued to British warships. Many smaller warships changed their number (and certainly the "flag superior" part of the pennant number (i.e. the alphabetical letter preceding the actual number), sometimes several times. The convention that has been agreed by Wiki editors for pre-1948 British warships is that the ships name is followed (in brackets) by the year of launch; the year of launch is thus used to distinguish between warships which have had the same name - for example, there have been sixteen British warships bearing the name HMS Phoenix, going back to the 16th century, of which your submarine was the last one; thus the launch date is used to distinguish between them, e.g. "HMS Phoenix (1929)", "HMS Phoenix (1911)", "HMS Phoenix (1895)", "HMS Phoenix (1879)", "HMS Phoenix (1832)", etc. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

HMS Grinder (1855)

Hi Shem - Thanks for the infobox and other edits to HMS Grinder (1855). You have much more info than i had! Viking1808 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

caps

Some of my moves are being reverted, perhaps justly; you might want to take a look. — kwami (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red link and WP:EASTEREGG

I stand corrected - I was working on the principle that something was better than nothing. But what you say makes sense. The HMS Leven article came out of a question on the Humanities Refdesk. I'd never heard of William Fitzwilliam Owen before - I intend to try to improve his article next. Alansplodge (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For fixing the slightly sloppy link to "Ramage" on the "Brig" page. That was me - I thought I was signed in, but I wasn't. Captain Pedant (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. If you look at the history, you'll find I messed it up first time and had to go back for a second try, so perfection eludes us all! I'm very grateful for the comment, and that you took the time to make it. Shem (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For consistent encouragement, good advice and sensitive editing you deserve a large one! Carlsberg Hof by choice. Viking1808 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Glug, glug, glug ...skol! Shem (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Falsen

Jørgen Conrad de Falsen has now gone to article space. I think I have removed the <-- hidden stuff --> and correct colons, so it should work. As a side note, his old estate at Søbysøgård is now an open prison !! but I do not think that would fit properly into the article. Thanks again Viking1808 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a suitable note for the article - is there a Wikipedia article on the prison? Is there a Danish Wikipedia article you could translate? Shem (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Nemesis (1780) and HMS Hussar (1784)

Hi, Shem, I was intending to add a couple of articles, including ones for the above two Sixth Rates (I've just put in pages for the Circe of 1785 and Rose of 1783). However I am stopped from doing this by the current links to these two ships, which disturbingly loop back into the disambiguation pages for Nemesis and Hussar, and prevent the proper articles being inserted. Can you amend/delete these looped links for me please, so I can proceed? If you discover that the same stupidity has been applied to any other ship/disambiguation pages, kindly you similarly 'free' these up? Many thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shem & Rif: I have removed the redirects. If you go to HMS Nemesis (1780) or HMS Hussar (1784), you will find just the title and nothing else. You can readily insert the info there. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put in infoboxes and navboxes, which should save some time (although the dimensions and armament may not be correct). I've also done the talk pages. Shem (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif - there's no reason you shouldn't do this yourself. All you need to do is navigate to the page (if you get redirected, there's a link at the top of the new page saying redirected from ... - just click on this link). Once you're at the redirect page, just edit the page and remove the "#REDIRECT" stuff when you put in the new bits. Having said that, please ask again if you want it done for you - more than happy to oblige. In the meantime we can't go around clearing redirects unless we intend to delete the page as well - and that's an admin task. If we ask an admin, they'll just tell us to leave the redirect or develop it into an article. Yours, Shem (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you, and for the info to allow me to do this for myself in future. I have gone through both stub articles and altered as you suggest. Shem, may I draw your attention to two general points; firstly, the number of 9-pounder guns on a 28-gun frigate was 24 (the primary upper deck battery), not the entire total of 28 guns; secondly, the last of the principal dimensions quoted for a sailing warship is the depth in hold and NOT the draught (although figures for the laden or light draught, usually separately given forewards and aft, may sometimes additionally be available). Regards from Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif - no problem, happy to help. I'm aware of both the points you mention - I just copied the infobox from another sixth rate - but which one was it? I'll see if I can find it. Shem (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Even when built to copies of the same design (like the Enterprise class), all wooden warships differed slightly from their sisters upon completion (and from the design dimensions/tonnage), albeit usually by only a few tons and a few inches or fractions of inches; this is in the nature of wooden shipbuilding. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Daring class destroyer (1949)

Twice I have reverted your change to this article with a request in the edit summary to take the matter to the talk page. Please do so and gain a consensus for your edit before making your change again. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nick - I didn't note the revert. Shem (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Message anomaly

re: Nav-box of ships on project talk page.

Hi Shem, This is odd. The new message was posted well after the (greater) nav box, entirely, yet it appears sandwiched in between the two smaller nav-boxes. Have moved to my draft page until I can see what gives here. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Capitalizations of military ranks

I've recently noticed that you have changed the capitalization of certain ranks, i.e. General of the army (United States). However, something like this has come up before. While I am inclined to change it back, I haven't, for the sake that it should be discussed with our peers before any action or inaction is taken. Neovu79 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just housekeeping; the consensus is well established at Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military_terms. Shem (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree that 95% of ranks should follow MOS, however, I remember a discussion that there are certain ranks that are also considered titles, therefore should be capitalized. I'm trying to find that discussion now so I can bring it to your attention. Neovu79 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see that discussion. Shem (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you go Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title. Now keep in mind that my views on this subject of the course of the years have changed, so I'm open to the idea to having some of these particular ranks uncapitalized more than others. Neovu79 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion shows more about editors who don't understand wiki piping (or didn't, 4 years ago) than it does about consensus on style. As I say, the consensus is clearly articulated at Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military_terms and (for titles) at WP:TITLEFORMAT (which says, in bold, at the top, "Use lower case, except for proper names"). Please note that the article is actually at general of the army (United States), although Wikipedia automatically capitalises the first letter when you view it - hence you can link to either Rear admiral or rear admiral within the text without needing a redirect. In view of that, I would suggest the only proper objection to moving to General of the army (United States) (vice General of the Army (United States)) would be that it's not a rank, but rather a position or title, and that's not supported by the article (or I wouldn't have moved it).

As a note of interest, if you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 68#Rank articles: capitalization of title and click on the list of proposed moves, you'll find many have moved to the lower case form between now and 4 years ago. Shem (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the American General of the Army/Armies ranks are special grades established by Congress. In the military and Congressional regulations, the word "Army" and "Armies" are clearly capitalized. Please see the talk pages of the respective articles if you wish to pursue this further. -OberRanks (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It matters not a jot what house style the US Army or anybody else uses; this is Wikipedia, and we follow our own consensus. As you say, this needs to be discussed at the article talk pages. Shem (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for other opinions. The MOS states "in general" military ranks are not capitalized. These are special titles, not general military ranks. -OberRanks (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done the same. I think the key point here is whether they are ranks or titles - if the latter, then I can see why it would make sense to keep the caps. But the article says "rank" throughout ("the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army" in the lede, for example). Shem (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Shem, I know that you're only doing this out of good faith, so I kind of feel responsible for not warning you that there are some who feel strongly on this subject. Neovu79 (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tons Burthen cannot be given metric equivalents

I'm not suggesting this was done by you, but I think I need to make a general point to people writing articles on sailing warships. I have just noticed that whoever constructed the articles on the 1706, 1719 and 1745 Establishments (and I suspect there may be numerous other articles with the same fault) has given what purports to be metric tonnage equivalents for the tons burthen. Apologies if you are already aware of this, but I clearly need to spread the word that tons burthen (used for all ships of the sailing era, although the calculation varied from one nation to another) are units of measurement and not units of weight (so reference to "long tons" is also an error) and there are no metric equivalents. It was only with the introduction of displacement tons during the 19th Century that tons acquired the meaning of tons weight. Sadly, this may mean that a large number of articles need to be checked and - where necessary - corrected. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rif, you're right, it wasn't done by me, and I understand the issue exactly as you state it. I've already fixed the errors at 1745 Establishment and 1706 Establishment, and I will continue to put it right if I find it messed up. I'll also try to see who is doing it. Shem (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Shem, I've amended the 1745 Establishment article, and also the 1719 Establishment one, and will get around to the 1706 Establishment one, which needs a fair amount of work. I notice that the 1706 article includes at the end a template listing all the ships built to that Establishment; it would be useful if a similar template was built for the ships built to the later Establishments, and I wonder if you could produce one for each article when you're back from your Wikibreak. The ships involved are listed in List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy. The 1706 template is in fact incomplete, in so far as it omits several ships built to the 1706 Establishment (including all the 40-gun ships) and it would be helpful if you could put the missing ships into this template also. I will happily make the other changes necessary to these articles to bring them into line with the new format of the 1745 article. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism Page moves

I'm leaving this message for you, OberRanks, and Jojalozzo to advise you to cease and desist the page move vandlaism - by which I mean the unauthorized moving of the page General of the Armies without filing for a move request. The point of move requests is to avoid this exact situation - a wheel war of page moving spawned by one editor's refusal to formal request a page move to allow others to contribute to a consensus to that move. While I appreciate the fact that your all trying to be technically correct its creating problems for the rest of us, therefore I've move protected the page until such time as a move request gets filed so we can determine conclusively which camp will walk away with the consensus of the editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I followed Wikipedia:Moving a page in the only move I made. I did not anticipate that it would be controversial, although clearly that was an error of judgement; I resent the hint of vandalism. Shem (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You moved the page perfectly, there was no error made with the technical aspects of the page move, and for that you should be proud; however, the page has a history of wheel waring arising from editors who usually edit too quickly without reading the full article or, as in the case case, act on their own initiative as is allowed by WP:BOLD (and to a lesser extent WP:IAR) to address a perceived issue. Properly speaking, in this case, no one has vandalized anything, its the actions that were taken by all three of you collectively that constitute wheel warring, ergo while the title I choose to leave my message under may be vandlaism (as it is when addressing the three of you together) independent of one another no one has done anything wrong, including you. The only issue I had in censoring the three of you for your actions arises out of the fact that for a page like this a move request should be filed before relocation to ensure that a page move - if one is indeed judged to be warranted under the circumstances - occurs with predetermined consensus for both moving the page and the new page name. For more information, you can see Wikipedia:Requested moves, or can raise the matter at the Military history Project talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom, thank you for taking the time to get back to me. Shem (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. I like to approach these events not some much as an enforcer but a teacher, IMO in this way everyone ends up walking away from the event with the knowledge as to how and why it happened, and therefore better for the experience. Simply cautioning the three of you for the actions taken without going the extra mile to explain why would have left everyone bitter and resentful, and in the long run that accomplishes nothing. If you have any other questions or comments about this do not hesitate to drop me a line and I will get back to you as soon as I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Shem1805! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cruizer Class Brig Sloops

I've replaced the historian's comment you had removed. I did so because it provides a lead in to the design of the class and therefore provides some depth to a very short article. I do not think that it was irrelevant to the article. The fact that the Cherokee Class was designed on much the same plan certainly highlights the Royal Navy's screaming need for very small warships. There is also the matter of removing properly cited content without a screamingly obvious reason for it.Tirronan (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Steen Andersen Bille

Hi! Could you please look at the new section Steen Andersen Bille on my talk page. You may be able to help me! Viking1808 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HMS C8.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS C8.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wager Mutiny Good Article Nomination

Know your busy, but I've submitted the Wager Mutiny article for nomination, you've been active in suggesting modifications, but I'm the only one who contributed to the body of the text (others have been great in correcting grammar etc.), so would you be able to review it? Oberon Houston