User talk:Harlsbottom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User Page
Talk Page
About Me
Userboxes
Projects
Library
Userspace
Contributions
Book Reviews
Archive
Archives
* Wikipedia Notices

.


Contents

[edit] Image:HMS Commonwealth HS.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:HMS Commonwealth HS.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Circeus 00:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Pennant numbers

Actually, I suspect that nobody has thought about the issue, and people have just been following whatever the first person to edit a RN article used. If our usage is non-standard, I see no reason to insist on it; but I would suggest starting a discussion at either the Maritime warfare task force or the Ships WikiProject (or even both!), as someone with more experience editing in those areas might see some subtleties that I'm missing. Kirill Lokshin 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS :-) Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Picture trouble

Actually, the image use policy states that we're unable to accept images which are released for use only on Wikipedia (as it prevents our content from being redistributable). You basically have three options:

  • Try to get the guy to release the image under the GFDL or a comparable license.
  • Find out the date of the photo and see if it's public domain. I'm not sure what the British laws in this regard are.
  • Claim the photo as {{Non-free fair use in}} the appropriate article.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harlsbottom/HMS Bellerophon

As categories are not meant to be used in articles on user sub pages (to avoid crossing namespaces), I hope you don't mind that I have put a "nowiki" tag on them. Please note also that the photo is up for CSD (deletion) as it does not have an acceptable copyright permission. If it is deleted, it can always be uploaded again with the correct GFDL or PD permission. Tyrenius 05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WPMILHIST

Oh, I think you're perfectly well-qualified. Now, whether you'll be elected is something I can't really make any promises on, for obvious reasons; it'll really depend on how many candidates wind up in the election, and who they are. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Re: you proposal of collaboration on Lee-Enfield and Webley derivatives: Absolutely! I'm a published writer on historic firearms in Australia, and of course have my own library- well, selection ;)- of reference material. Always wanted to visit the Royal Pattern Room, but the last time I was in the UK it wasn't open so I had to content myself with the Tower of London and their Puckle Gun... If you're not too busy, I could use some help on the Lee-Enfield article as it currently stands. Some anyonymous individual is stirring up trouble on the talk page, trying to claim the Krag-Jorgensen is a faster rifle than the Lee-Enfield, calling the editors "Fanboys", and generally acting like a rather silly person. --Commander Zulu 00:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assistant Military Coordinator Positions

Harlsbottom Good Morning! As you may have noted, I voted for you for one of the assistant's positions, and you had kindly done the same for me. Assuming you are one of the six - a reasonable assumption, I beleive! - what period of naval history interests you the most? (Yout interest in the British navy is obvious, but I wondered what era interestd you the most?) Though I have worked primarily on land battle articles, I also have a keen interest in naval warfare, especially the naval aspect of the Punic Wars, and (naturally!) Admiral Lord Nelson and the whole era of British rule of the seas which followed France's destruction as a naval power. I had wondered if an article was possible on the various types of warships, particularly the sail powered warships, with some sort of box to compare firepower, et al. (Ship of the Line versus Frigates, etc.) I am interested in your thoughts on these issues. One thing you said when you entered the race for an assistant's slot, and I believe it true, even if it knocks me out of a slot - sheer number of edits should not be a definitive measure of an editor's contributions. (Though before I voted for you, I went and read some of your work, which was impressive!) I hope you win one of the slots because you bring a "fresh" perspective, in addition to a knowledgable one. Whether I also win or not, I hope to work on an article, or several, with you in the future. I also wanted to run by you an idea which has been in my mind for sometime. When an editor or editors are preparing to post an entirely new article, (which, for instance, I will be doing in the next month or so comparing all types of bows, compound, {Hunnish, Muslim, and Mongol}, longbows, English, Japanese and Mongol, crossbows, {Chinese, European}, instead of simply posting it, and taking the normal flack one always gets with a new article, I have asked Wandalstouring, who is a really fabulous expert on weaponry, to proofread it for factual accuracy, article structure, and anything else he can see to improve the draft. I will also ask Rex, and at least one or two other good editors, (including yourself), and once they have all critiqued it, try to address these issues before the article is formally posted for the first time. It seems to me that this informal "peer" or "expert" review on drafts would save a lot of needless argument when the article is posted. I personally would like to see the assistant coordinators make sure all of the new articles are vetted this way - again, thoughts? Thanks, and good luck on the election! old windy bear 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the support, old windy bear. I voted for you (and Kirill as well) because you are obviously devoted to the cause, and have an amazing breadth of knowledge which has obviously served the community well. My knowledge on all things historical is pretty broad (vast detail here and there and overview on certain periods) but I'm always willing to find more subjects and master them. My naval interest at the moment is limited to 20th Century Royal and Imperial Navies (which I've nearly got mastered I think) as well as good knowledge of other navies throughout histories. I did learn about the naval wars of Ancient and Roman times a couple of years back, but I'd have to refresh myself on that now, alas. I like your idea. It might give fiddlers nothing to fiddle with once an article's been uploaded, but it means that the end-product is as good as possible, which is what we all aim for. I can see that you'll be made a coordinator for sure, and we'll just have to wait and see whether I get in. Cheers, --Harlsbottom 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Btw, please don't think I was knocking you on edit counts! I was merely pointing out my smaller number so that noone else did. I can only dream of having 3500+ posts at this time! --Harlsbottom 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Harlsbottom Greetings again! I did not in any way take offense at the edit count comment. I actually thought you made a valid point in that a simple numerical count does not validate the quality of a person's work or their ability to work with others. I went and looked at some of your edits - and found a superior mind doing first rate work. I hope you will be with wikipedia for a long time, because you have a lot to offer, and you will pile the numbers up as the time passes! I did appreciate your vote - I have tried hard to help the community and this project in particular, as I believe you will. I am pleased you like my idea of "pre-editing" precisely for the reason you named - it will remove a lot of the na sayers reasons to bellow! And no matter how good a person is, two minds are always better! I hope I get one of the assistant's positions, but whether I do or not, I will keep working to better wikipedia. I do think you have a good chance, and would make a fine assistant, which is why I voted for you. We do need fresh perspectives, and your work is simply first rate - so you are the ideal candidate for a "new voice." In any event, I will be asking you for help in editing articles with a naval component in the future! Take care, old windy bear 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Simon. Hope you've had a good time in USA. You seem to produce quite a lot of stuff for Wikipedia - good work! Personally I don't have a lot of time for this Wikipedia malarky. Thomas Wales --AlbertW 12:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambigous image permission

Hi, you have uploaded Image:WimberleyUCD.JPG and tagged it with either {{No rights reserved}} or {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, but the upload summary only says that the image is used with permission. Can you please clearify wether or not the copyright holder actualy explicitly said that anyone can use the image for any purpose (including commercial use)? Often people will give permission for something to be used on Wikipedia, but unfortunately this alone does not mean that it becomes free content (wich it needs to be in order for us to use it), so if all we have is the permission to use the image on Wikipedia we regretfully have to delete it unless we can justify it's use under our fair use policy. If you need to ask the copyright holder to clearify please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission first to make sure you ask for the right things.

Please look into this ASAP as I have tagged the image as "no licence" in the meantime, meaning it will get deleted in 7 days time unless the license is clearified. If you didn't get to read this before after the image was deleted don't worry; if you get the required copyright release "after the fact" we can always undelete the image. Just ask the deleting admin (check the deletion log) politely to do so, or post a undelete request at Wikipedia:Deletion review along with the nessesary copyright info. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Just thought I'd say hi, I was impressed with the quote from the Lady at the top of your userpage, looking through your interests you are a fellow after my own heart. I'd be interested in helping to draw up a list of shipbuilders, would probably be good to do it as a subpage of the WP:SHIP namespace. Emoscopes Talk 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of good stuff in H. T. Lenton, British and Empire Warships of World War II. However, it isnt in a very accessible format, i.e. it's listed by ship and not by yard, and the names are often Lenton's own shortenings, I often have to refer to the google to get the full name of the company. As for funnel bands, I'm afraid I only have references for WW2 destroyers (Lenton again!). I presume you're barking up the right tree though. Emoscopes Talk 02:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ghazni

Hi There,

Just created this article, Battle of Ghazni during the First Anglo-Afghan War. I was wondering if you could fix up anything which is incorrect or add to this battle or link this battle to other articles so that it generates traffic. Thankyou. Mercenary2k 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Dreadnought (1906) Collaboration

Hi. I read your pertinent comments on the Peer Review for Dreadnought from a while back. Since little seems to have been done on the article, would you be interested in a collaboration? This has to be one of the most important pages for Wikipedia yet it doesn't meet that standard in accuracy or content. I've sidelined all my Wikipedia stuff in favour of other internet projects, but this is something I'd like to see fixed. --Harlsbottom 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks; like you, I've got tied up with other stuff, but I'm keen to see this key article brought up to scratch. Do you intend to nominate this as a Collaboration of the fortnight, or just to get a few guys together and start plugging away?
Regards, John Moore 309 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
PS I've taken the liberty of copying this thread to your Talk Page.
It's probably a good idea to nominate it for collaberation. It ought to generate more interest than the latest Review did (how anyone thought it would serve as a featured article I cannot imagine). On the discussion page Carom had some sound thoughts on transferring the American all-gun warship information (out of place in my opinion to a development page, but little seems to have come of it. Start plugging away sounds good. I'm armed with my Warrior to Dreadnought, The Grand Fleet, (D.K. Brown, as I believe you know) Battleships at War (B.R. Coward), Dreadnought Gunnery at the Battle of Jutland (John Brooks) and the Battleships of World War One (Antony Preston) as well as a few other unmentionables. --Harlsbottom 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Copied back to my discussion page)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

Thanks much for the vote! --Petercorless 01:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert J. Rowcliff

Thank for your incredible editing of my contribution on Rear Admiral Rowcliff. The article looks great and reads so much better. I am pretty new to this stuff but I have been studying the tutorials.

Again thanks so much. (Jarvisrb 16:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Template:British Shipbuilders evolution

Hello, Harlsbottom. I have been working on improving the template Template:British Shipbuilders evolution and was rather pleased with the results, but appear to have incurred the wrath of some busybody who has proposed it as "listcruft" at templates for deletion. You were very helpful a while back when I was organising the information regarding UK shipyards that lead me to develop the template. I would appreciate any input that you might have at TFD (positive or otherwise, if I am being too protective of my "baby" perhaps its about time I saw the light). Emoscopes Talk 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A true gent, sir, I doff my shipbuilding cap to you :) Emoscopes Talk 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks, you may be interested to have a look at my aircraft drawings at deviantART (no, I amn't one of those deviantART poetry-writing types, it's just a convenient way to upload my work to scrutiny :> ) As for the workings of a large-calibre gun turret, I think illustration might be more useful than animation, my animation skills are strictly limited to animated gifs, and I really don't have the patience for all that stop-frame stuff, however a series of 3 or 4 images might illustrate the point well. I might consider a very large animation (MB-size plus) as a personal project, and we could always external link to it, but seeing as it would require the basic drawings to be done anyway, might as well start there. It would be interesting to show the differences between pre- and post-Jutland turrets, illustrating how there was a fatal lack of flash-tightness. I think a 15 inch turret would be best, the 16 inch Nelson type and 14 inch KGV types were rather unique and horrifically complicated in their design and internal workings, would just obscure the matter.
As for shipyards, there are two ways to go about it - by shipyard and by shipbuilding company. I am tempted to go about it the former way as shipbuilding companies change name and ownership far more frequently than shipyards themselves are established and closed. I think the company approach leads to a plethora of minor articles, I am always tempted to create pages about the most well-known name and forget about the short-lived names. The exception is where the yard is still extant, where I believe policy dictates it should be known by its current name (like the daft BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions, with precedence over Yarrow Shipbuilders Limited).
Emoscopes Talk 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turret animation

I found a good description of the operation of the 15 inch turret in Roskill's HMS Warspite, I think I'm going to have a bash at this animation, I have a simplified cutaway drawing complete with annotations. I'll let you know how progress goes. P.S. I believe I stumbled across you on facebook - a fiew friends of mine are involved in the Conservative Future too. Emoscopes Talk 15:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done! See Gun turret :) What a way to spend a friday night hehe Emoscopes Talk 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that, sir, is beautiful! Works wonders for the gun turret page. Your surrendering of a Friday evening is much appreciated. Harlsbottom 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rifle Automatic 7mm Number 9 Mark 1 EM2.jpg

Hello Harlsbottom, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rifle Automatic 7mm Number 9 Mark 1 EM2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Harlsbottom/EM2. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spruce Harbour, Maine

I've proposed Spruce Harbour, Maine for deletion - that article was created by you in August, 2006, and has been marked for cleanup since then. To halt the proposed article deletion, simply edit the article to remove the template. --Chrisbak 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cunningham

Thankyou for your comments on Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, i have now replied and would appreciate any further commments. Thanks Woodym555 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Bees School

Hello, I was in the process of starting to put together an infobox for the above school, when I found your user page concerning St Bees School [[User:Harlsbottom/St Bees School]. It is obviously a much fuller account doing the school more credit than the current entry. Given the work you have done I am not about to create the infobox. However, I would point out that I have added to the list of notable alumni in the live version the three VC holders from the school which, when you do make your content go live, may embellish it further. I look forward to seeing the live version (do you have an estimate as to when thsi will be by the way?) Kwib 11:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure of the etiquette surrounding one of these (hopefully you can correct me if this is the wrong way to go about it), but I just wanted to make a comment about an edit of the St Bees School page. I'm not sure how the CCF was run when you were in the school, but now it is very much an uninformed service, rather than a uniformed one... Lalguy 23:25, 10 April 2008

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:WimberleyUCD.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:WimberleyUCD.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Spruce Harbor, Maine (fictional town)

Spruce Harbor, Maine (fictional town), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Spruce Harbor, Maine (fictional town) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spruce Harbor, Maine (fictional town) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Spruce Harbor, Maine (fictional town) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Oak

Hi again, I did manage to find some more on Cdr Nichols' escape from Vanguard the night it blew up. According to Snyder in The Royal Oak Disaster, Nichols had been at the concert party; however this was a party held on board the amenity ship (Snyder calls it a 'theatre ship') Gourko – which was hosting a concert by crew members of Royal Oak. This might explain where some of the confusion has risen. Anyway, thought you might like to know this snippet. Best regards, — BillC talk 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six not seven

Sorry about that. I've been getting a few complaints about doing too many edits, so (for the first time) I composed a chunk of text incorporating numerous amendments and then pasted it into the source. Of course, in strict accordance with Sod's Law I thereby overwrote your edit.

As for how I came to put "seven" instead of "six" . . I think I must have been very tired.

Again, my apologies.

Regards,

Dave

Wild Surmise (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Dewar

Great article! Will you be putting it on WP:DYK? I have a copy of Gardiner's The Royal Oak Courts Martial, and can supply additional citations if you want. — BillC talk 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were writing a DYK hook, I might try:

... that Royal Navy captain Kenneth Dewar was controversially court martialled in 1928 for criticising his flag officer, an event the press extravagantly described as a mutiny?

I made some notes from the official Royal Navy reports on the affair held at Kew. I have some clippings from The Scotsman too. I'll add what I can to the references. It is difficult in this day and age to appreciate how massive a news event this then was, but it occupied the front pages for weeks at a time: clearly the issue du jour of Spring 1928. — BillC talk 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Dewar

Updated DYK query On 2 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kenneth Dewar, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JohnFox-Russell.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:JohnFox-Russell.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dyk

Updated DYK query On 11 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Algernon West, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: St Bees School

Hey Harley, I like it.. been wondering how long it would take you to get it live. It goes into a lot more depth than the previous article, which is good. If people do not want to read it all they don't have to! -- Kayedj (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Dewar

Hi, sorry for a taking a while to respond. You've done some great work on this article, it's really come along. I don't think it is appropriate for me to do a GA review on it, since I have some edits to the article myself, plus it's got a sentence or two that I wrote in another article. However, I am more than willing to contribute to adding references, making suggestions, and so on. There is a definite backlog on the GA review page, but I would advise patience: there's no deadline, and someone will get round to it sooner or later. The MilHistory project are an active bunch, and I am sure it will catch someone's eye there eventually.

(On a completely unrelated matter, I just read your user's page: I went to Leeds University too, though rather a long time ago now.) Best regards, — BillC talk 16:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this is what (in fact, all), I have on Dewar's wartime work: In 1940, Dewar, aged nearly 60, went back to the Admirality, working in the Historical Section of the Training and Staff Duties Division. The section head was his older brother, Captain A.C. Dewar (retd.) He appears to have worked there to the war's conclusion, for Gardiner makes no further reference to this period. (Ref: Gardiner, p230).
Glenton simply agrees with the above, and makes no further advance on it. Ref Glenton, p169. Not a great deal, unfortunately. It seems to have been a rather quiet war for Kenneth Dewar. — BillC talk 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Hood

Hello there!

As you are a Royal Navy fan (your superb ID Ensign is a give away!), perhaps you would care to review some of the considerable edits I am making on the Hood page. I believe, given this ship served for 20 + years, that it should be longer. Bismarck's page is so yet it was only "alive" for just over 2 years. Dapi89 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have cited a source that claims the Hood sank the French battleship Bretagne, is this for certain as far as you know? Dapi89 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Class - Infobox Ship Class

Hi - {{Infobox Class}} and {{Infobox Ship Class}} are deprecated and will soon be nominated for deletion. I notice that you are using these templates in your user space and wanted to inform you that they will no longer function once the templates are deleted. They have been replaced by using {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}. Thanks :) --Brad (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jutland Edit/Gallery

Hello, following the link on Jutland talk I see you have a personal version of the entire page which you're editing--how does that work? Surely you don't intend to replace the entire page, wiping what anyone else has done in the interim? Or is there some Wiki tool for merging? Thanks, haven't run into this before.

Also, I see you have an admiral gallery with Scheer in it. I recommend you plug your (more complete) gallery into the article immediately to repair the recent grievous hack job, as mentioned in the "gallery" debate there.Rep07 (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You can't really mean to simply replace the page though? Isn't there a policy on that? Also Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I've spent several hours referencing and refining a section recently and would not be pleased to have it just rolled over.Rep07 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Massie, yes I am also concerned about over-reliance on Massie, but my philosophy is that inline citations are better than no citations, and tend to stabilize the article because others are much less likely to delete or revise factual material that has at least one respectable source (which Massie certainly is, though not necessarily the best possible source). At this point I only have Massie and Campbell, but for the info I am putting in I feel that they are appropriate sources (ships involved, times, hits scored, specific events). Massie is writing at a higher, and necessarily more summarized and qualitative level, than Campbell, and summary always tends to inaccuracy. I prefer Campbell, and notice that Campbell often differs from Massie slightly on times; in those cases I would trust Campbell. So I may go back and change some cites to Campbell, or double them up. And by all means, if you have better sources for anything, please add them in as well (or replace what's there); there is nothing wrong with double-backing the facts, especially since there is almost a century of controversy and inaccuracy hanging over this battle.

Re: replacing sections, for the record, I could care less about anything except the factual narrative of the battle itself; all the strategy, background, controversy etc. doesn't really concern me though I've attempted to back up some of it in a few places. I think we should try to get this article to the standard of Battle of Waterloo, which I admire. Rep07 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Horrocks

Were you able to find any sources for an article about Sir William Horrocks? The question came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Horrocks. Leithp 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been busy with other things, but I can probably knock together a decent start-class article tonight. Glad to see BH will probbaly make FA. --Harlsbottom (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's much appreciated. I can add in anything else I find in Warner or Horrocks' books. Thanks! Leithp 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm impressed! Leithp 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As am I - wish I could knock together such a decent article as quickly as that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks gents. It makes a nice change from naval history! I just wish there was more on the elder Horrocks... Harlsbottom (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Kenneth Dewar

No problem about exam season and the time limit, sometimes it can't be helped, but yes, it will need a new review opened. It has been closed and is currently in the archives etc so a new one is needed. Remember to move the old one to an "/archive1" if you are opening a new review. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Horrocks

Updated DYK query On 26 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Horrocks, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sebree

You responded very quickly on the MILHIST talk page with the date that Uriel Sebree became a rear admiral, which I really appreciated. What reference were you using? I'd like to see if I have access to a copy. Thanks! JRP (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Control

Dear Harlsbottom, thank you for your kind enquiry. I am particularly grateful that you did not simply revert my changes. I have high hopes that sensible, intelligent people can reach a meeting of minds. The source I used was the dictionary.

Firing (noun) : the act of discharging a weapon. Fire (noun) : fuel in a state of combustion.

You will probably be familiar with the phrases "firing pin" and "firing mechanism".

"Fire" can also be used as a verb. Indeed, "fire" is used both as an attributive noun and as an attributive verb in the two meanings of "fire-control" as can be seen at the top of the article. Attributive nouns have been in use since the fourteenth century and are a well established part of the english language. Attributive verbs on the other hand do not share the same status. The use of attributive verbs can lead to ambiguities and misunderstandings because so many of them can be taken as attributive nouns, for instance.

Cook book : a work of biography. Pay point : where the staff collect their wages. Fry pan : a pan for cooking small fish Ski mask : a mask for a ski that wishes to remain anonymous. No fly zone : an area patrolled by spiders. Fail safe : ?

Now to some people this is all rather silly, and in a way, I agree, but I have to ask weather it is not easier for the reader to see the intended meaning if it does not have a silly meaning standing right in front of it. The intended meanings of most of these things can be discerned by moderately skilled readers with no more than a little time and patience, but to my mind at least the essence of good writing is to express one's thoughts clearly rather than to set puzzles for the reader to solve. The better terms are: cookery book, payment point, frying pan, skiing mask, flight exclusion zone, and failure safe.

I hope that this has answered your question. Best wishes Sesquihypercerebral (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)