User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 2

Archives

Lists of dead

It was brought up here, and there's a lengthy discussion about it over at Talk:Omagh bombing as well, including an AfD for a list of names of the dead. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result was quite clear, as is the discussion on the Omagh bombing talk page and help desk. A list of names is just not generally encyclopedic, we don't have a list of everyone that died on 9/11. Bloody Sunday is a different matter entirely in my opinion, the background of the people is important to establish exactly who the Paras shot. The members detailed in the East Tyrone Brigade are notable, and were put into the article as a result of AfDs as you are well aware, therefore there is a consensus for them to be in that article. If you have more information on the dead other than a name, rank and age I'd have no objection to them going back in, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre contains considerably more information on the dead than the article we're discussing. The information I removed was:

Musician Michael F. Ball (24)
Musician John A. Cleatheroe (25)
Band Corporal Trevor E. Davies (39)
Musician Richard G. Fice (22)
Musician Richard M. Jones (27)
Band Corporal David McMillan (26)
Musician Christopher R. Nolan (21)[12]
Band Corporal Dean P. Pavey (31)
Musician Mark T. Petch (24)
Musician Timothy J. Reeves (24)
Musician Robert L. Simmonds (34)

As before, if you have any information other than that I've no objection to them going back in. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you would agree that the lists are in effect quite different, and that a discussion on a list of victims of a very recent event with a reasonable amount of detail isn't really comparable to a list of victims from an event that happened 18 years ago with very little information on each victim? [1] [2] [3] - not one of them has a list of the dead, please correct me if I'm wrong but the only place the list exists is Sutton's list? Going back to the ETB, if all that was known was the names of the dead and the fact they died at Loughgall, I definitely wouldn't be in favour of them being included in the article in their current format, but there is *some* information available about them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What enyclopedic value does the list have? None that I can see, it's a classic example of WP:NOT. I'd have no objection to an external link to the site you provided, it serves the purpose equally as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the list of names is not relevant as shown by the fact the media don't include the list of dead in their coverage. What happens if the link goes dead? archive.org - simple. Going back to the ETB, if you check what the article looked like before I moved the images it looked like this. If you can find a better way to format the article I'd be glad to take a look. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Fleming (Irish republican)

Jacky, you added nn tags to the above article. I created it but lost a load of material last night when I was editing it last night after me puter scrane freezeded up. I'll do more work on it today and add more info and sources and give you a shout later to see if you want to remove the nn tags. regards--Vintagekits 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, you've been entirely reasonable and rational. If it wernt for the freezing last night then there would have been no need for this but I'm back at square one and I will get it sorted today.--Vintagekits 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Eric Robinson, VC

Thanks for your comment. Regret all I know about the picket boat torpedoes is that they were carried in "dropping gear" mounted on the gunwales. The last remaining picket boat was restored to seaworthy condition several years ago by the Maritime Trust, Ferrol Road, Gosport. It was the Trust that furnished me with the photo of Triumph's boat. My grandfather, Bill Drake (later to become sole survivor of sub. G9), served as stoker 'on the night', and was personally thanked by Robinson for maintaining an excellent head of steam. It was indeed an amazing venture. Brian Head, researcher at the Sub. Museum in Gosport commented that the expedition had "one way ticket" written all over it. Will endeavour to visit Robinson's grave at Langrish; what a man! Enjoyed the piece about the Tibet Expedition. Always wondered what it was about after finding a memorial on the sea wall at Craster, Northumberland, commemorating one the officers lost. Regards, Ptelea 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment came from Head himself, but A.S.Evans' Beneath the Waves, a history of British submarine losses covers the event very well. Regards, Ptelea 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regret never made Head's acquaintance. He replied on behalf of the museum after I'd sent in a collection of old naval photos. Book out of print but held by public libraries: Evans, A. S. (1986). Beneath the Waves - A history of British submarine losses. Kimber, London. ISBN 0-7183-0601-5. Best of luck,

Regards Ptelea 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SS Ohio

I have never failed anything before so am not familiar with this. I also thought someone else might have much better comments than I did. That proved to be the case with your find comments. Thanks Hmains 00:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I usually do. Sorry about the added words. Hmains 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm sorry to revive this discussion almost a month after the review, but having a nasty set of exams in the middle I couldn't get to the article. Anyways, thanks for your comments, I have dealt with the points listed in the discussion page. Again, thanks for your help. Reuv 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be fine...i'm sure it needs further work to it. Reuv 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Cound Brunt

Hi there. Thanks for your suggestions about the John Henry Cound Brunt article; I've done my best with them! I'd like to see this man well-represented, as he's a bit of a local hero in Paddock Wood, where I live! As suggested, I used the article on Thomas Crisp to base the changes on. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits look great! Thank you for your attention. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (6 June)

On 6 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1902 British Home Championship, 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.

Laïka 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Empire Gallantry Medal

You seem to be knowlegeable about the various gallantry medals revoked and awarded - could you take a look at User:RHB/Empire Gallantry Medal and check that whatever I've said there is correct? Thanks, RHB - Talk 11:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Peel Ritchie

Congratulations - an excellent copy-edit on suggestions provided. It is well presented and passes the WP:GAC. You may wish to cut the following template {{User Good Article|Henry Peel Ritchie}} and paste to your user page or other suitable location - This will provide the following template:

This user helped promote Henry Peel Ritchie to good article status.

Well done!--VS ^talk 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - again, you're welcome. Good working with you (and thanks for the opportunity to chip in on my first GA collaboration; hopefully not the last!) EyeSerene^TALK 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1949 and 1950 British Home Championship

Dear Jackyd 101,

Good work on your on British Home Championship pages. However both the 1950 and 1949 articles contain some mistakes regarding Ireland. It was in the 1950 championship that the IFA fielded an All-Ireland team for the last time, not 1949. See excerpt from article below.

On March 8 1950, in a 0-0 draw with Wales at the Racecourse Ground, Wrexham, the IFA XI fielded a team that included players born in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State for the last time. The team included four Free State - born players, including the captain Con Martin, Tom Aherne, Reg Ryan and Davy Walsh. As well as being part of the 1950 British Home Championship, the game also doubled up as a qualifier for the 1950 FIFA World Cup. All four players had previously played for the FAI XI in their qualifiers and as a result had played for two different associations in the same FIFA World Cup tournament.

This situation eventually led FIFA to intervene, after complaints from the FAI. FIFA restricted players' eligibility based on the political border. In 1953 FIFA ruled neither team could be referred to as Ireland, decreeing that the FAI team be officially designated as the Republic of Ireland, while the IFA team was to become Northern Ireland. The IFA objected and in 1954 was permitted to continue using the name Ireland in the British Home Championship. This practice was discontinued in the late 1970s.

Source

The Boys In Green - The FAI International Story (1997): Sean Ryan [4]

Ireland teams

Hi Jackyd 101, The history of Irish football between the 1920s and 1950s is very confusing and you are not the first and will not be the last to get mixed up. I have done the same in the past but have researched the subject and have found some answers. Here is a timeline that might help you.

1882 to 1924: Ireland is represented by a single football team, Ireland national football team (IFA), selected by the Belfast based Irish Football Association.
1921: With the emergence of the Irish Free State, the Dublin based Football Association of Ireland is formed and it initially claimed jurisdiction over all of Ireland.
1923: The FAI applies to join FIFA but is admitted as a representative of the Free State only and drops its claims to be an all-Ireland body.
1924 to 1936: The FAI organises the Irish Free State national football team selecting players just from the Free State.
1924 to 1950: The IFA continues to select the Ireland national football team (IFA) selecting players from throughout the island and continues to refer to the team as Ireland.
1936 to 1950: The FAI also begins to call their team Ireland and in 1937 after the introduction of the Constitution of Ireland, and in particular Articles 2 and 3 which declared that the whole of Ireland formed one "national territory", the FAI also began to select players born in Northern Ireland.
1949-1950: Both Ireland teams enter the qualifying rounds of the 1950 World Cup. This was the first time the two teams had competed in the same competition. Four players - Tom Aherne, Reg Ryan, Davy Walsh and Con Martin - actually found themselves playing for two different national teams in the same competition. FIFA intervened and decreed that for future World Cups, the IFA team would compete as Northern Ireland, while the FAI team would be officially known as the Republic of Ireland.

Many books and statistical records, including the one you are using, have simply just back dated the names Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland and have incorrectly applied them to the teams selected by the IFA and FAI. I can only guess that this is done to help the reader know which team the stats refer to without giving a full explanation. In reality these teams were both all-Ireland teams. As late as 1946 the IFA selected a team featuring seven players from the Republic of Ireland and between 1924 and 1950 at least 37 players turned out for both Ireland teams. This list [5] features 35 of them. The other two are Edwin Brooks and Kevin O'Flanagan. This bio of Tom Aherne [6] also shows that he played for the IFA XI against Wales in 1950. The Ryan is a good source for this issue. You would have though that FIFA would have anticipated this problem before the two teams played in the same competition but in reality they did’nt do anything until afterwards.

Regarding the 1914 British Home Championship, the original version contained some historical errors and a lot of waffle. I have no issue with the extra para you have added to the 1950 British Home Championship, but the table and list of results already clarifies the progress of the tournament. The text I have added just explains events beyond the scope of stats. Djln--Djln 15:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Joseph Keane

Note at Talk:John Joseph Keane Jeepday (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Capper.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Capper.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Considering the heat of the debate, somewhat uncivil I thought, and uncalled for. Let's keep it cool :)GH 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is claiming to be "in charge" of anything. Could be taken as provocative. Just try to keep things cool. Discuss the issues and not the other editors. Thanks. GH 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 11:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Capper

Hey, I just passed Thompson Capper to good article this morning. I found the article to be really interesting and couldn't fault it! Well done. The Rambling Man 11:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto City Centre Airport

I think it is misleading to label this article as a national historic site. Readers will get the impression that this designation belongs to the airport, not the terminal building. If the building is so important, then create a separate article for the building. Atrian 14:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jean de Carrouges

I mean that the thumbnail size in the article should be the same for all images (or, at the least, that there should be two or three standard sizes used). Having each image displayed at a different size—and floating text boxes with yet another size, to boot—creates a very cluttered visual effect, which isn't really a good thing here. Kirill 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you don't have to; as it is now, things look ok. Kirill 01:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA articehistory

Hi, Jackyd101, please have a look at the articlehistory corrections at Talk:First Battle of Beruna. Project assessments aren't added to articlehistory; the correct status is DGA. Also, currentstatus and topic were listed twice. When you finish working on articlehistory, if you scroll to the bottom of the talk page, you'll see the red error category lit up if there are any problems. Instructions are at {{ArticleHistory}}. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-Fort Blue Mounds

Hello. I have made some comments at your GA review for Attacks at Fort Blue Mounds and some may require some reviewer input, if you would be so kind to drop by and take a look I would appreciate it. And thanks for the review by the way. IvoShandor 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review. Hopefully I can get some pictures soon, I may be in Madison, Wisconsin tomorrow which is near this place, so I may try to hunt it down, the site anyway. If not then, soon. Otherwise I thought about adding an image of a Ho-Chunk warrior, with a good caption it could be useful. What did you think of that idea? IvoShandor 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson FAC

Regarding your objections to the Homer Simpson candidate for featureship, I'm just writing to let you know that I've expanded the Impact on cultural influence--Hadseys

Did you know...

On 15 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Capper, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Merit

		The Chain Barnstar of Merit
		For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence

		The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
		For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour

		The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
		For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jacques Le Gris

The article Jacques Le Gris you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Jacques Le Gris for eventual comments about the article. Well done! T Rex | talk 07:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, very interesting read too. T Rex | talk 03:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillman's Run-GA

I have addressed most of the points at Talk:Battle of Stillman's Run if you could take a look and offer your input it would be greatly appreciated. IvoShandor 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:British Army World War I divisions

Yes, if you'd like, feel free to link commanders in the list I'm working on in my sandbox. The project that the work in my sandbox relates to is actually List of British divisions in World War I; I simply work to slowly to do all the improvement in the mainspace (even using {{underconstruction}}), and I'm still messing around with the parameters. At any rate, linking the commanders is one thing that will need to be done, and if you're interested, please do so.

Also, I'm also at work on some articles on British WWI commanders (I've recently done Walter Braithwaite, Edward Bulfin and Frederick Barton Maurice, and I'm working on a couple at the moment). We should perhaps keep in touch on this, so we don't end up duplicating effort or working at cross purposes? Carom 03:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus in popular culture

I incorporated this into the See also section of Augustus for now. As of now, the article is far too big to merge all this, so it being placed in "See also" will do for now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the sub-article of "Augustus in popular culture" to the top of the Legacy section as a "further information" link. It suits it better than being stuck in the nosebleed section of "See also," since it is an important sub-article. So after this move, do you support or object the Augustus article?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Battle capitalization

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital_letters)#Military terms --Philip Baird Shearer 06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Philip's pre-empted me on this. Your input would be welcome. -Kieran 10:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Ostend Raid

Why did you change spelling of "manoeuvring"? The spelling with the 'o' in it is correct British spelling... I had assumed that you were Brit yourself, given your edit history, but I could always be wrong. Anyway, the old spelling was right, and the current one not, for an en-GB context article! "overweighed" should probably be "overweight" too :)

Hope you don't mind me keeping an eye on your article, but I'm interested to see how far you can take it! Carre 23:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Waterloo ready for re-review

Hi there. Several hundred edits later, I think we've addressed most of the concerns you raised in the review (or provided justifications as to why they were not addressed). Most of the discussion underneath the GA review on the talk page pertains to the GA drive, so justifications can be found there. There is also a progress tracker table which summarises what was done. Please come and re-review the article for GA. -Kieran 07:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Is there any particular reason why your sig does not include a date stamp? Lara Love 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you nominated an article at GAC and it produced an error for the bot report as no nomination date found. Lara Love 01:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have accidentally signed with only three tildes (Lara Love). Lara Love 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass for Second Ostend Raid

Congratulations - I have just passed Second Ostend Raid as a Good Article, and have updated the templates on the article talk page. You may wish to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|Second Ostend Raid}} and paste it to somewhere suitable (such as your user page).

It will produce the following userbox:

This user helped promote Second Ostend Raid to good article status.

Another great piece of work ;) Well done! EyeSerene^TALK 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It's actually the first article I've reviewed that got an outright pass (bar a few very minor things that I fixed myself; nothing worth putting it on hold for). I have to congratulate you on your output - your articles are always well-researched and interesting to read. I'll keep a (serene) eye out for them in future ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Barnstar

I award you this British barnstar for all your work on Britiish relaited articals, and espeshally on British rugby, keep it up!!! --Boris 1991 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your contributions to the article Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall. Regards, Masterpiece2000 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3rd FA

		The Featured Article Medal
		Please accept this award in recognition of your hard work on three featured articles: Thomas Crisp, Ronald Niel Stuart and Second Ostend Raid. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Nice job on getting Second Ostend Raid to FA - I can't say I'm surprised, it was already very good at GA ;) EyeSerene^TALK 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Henry Blagrove

What a great article. Will you be submitting it to WP:DYK? One thing I noticed in the article was its statement "when Prien returned nearly an hour later". The sources I have (all those listed in HMS Royal Oak (08)) state that Prien's turnaround time was between 15-20 minutes, not almost an hour. One of the survivors noted the time of the first impact as 01:04. The logbook of HMS Pegasus corroborates this time as 01:05, and notes "01:15 Three more explosions in Royal Oak at intervals of about two minutes". Perhaps this should be amended. Anyway, your article was a great read. — BillC ^talk 14:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I spotted the article quickly because you linked to it from HMS Royal Oak (08), which I mostly wrote and is on my watchlist. — BillC ^talk 14:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds nothing on Wikipedia. There's no article on the Second Battleship Divison yet, so I think that might be it for existing links. References to him might be made on Scapa Flow or Churchill Barriers, but I can't think of anything else at the moment. Regards, — BillC ^talk 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing era categories

Hey Jack! I noticed that you removed many era categories from ship articles and placed them on their class categories. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships prefers to place era categories on ships only, because they do not necessarily apply to the entire class. Please don't remove era cats from ships. Thanks! TomTheHand 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henry Blagrove, 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 22 November, 2007, a fact from the article Horace Hood, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Gebora FAC

Hi there,

Regarding the above FAC, and the Soult image you commented on, I think I've tracked it down and fixed it now. Seems to have been a problem with certain screen resolutions making the floating infobox/campaign box on the right clash with the floating image on the left. WP:BUNCH and {{FixBunching}} are useful for fixing this sort of thing, if you ever encounter the problem in your own work. Can you do me a favour and have a look to check whether I have indeed fixed it, or not? Cheers. Carre (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Alderson GAN: On Hold

GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gascoigne Robinson GA sweep (hold)

I have reassessed this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. As I'm sure you know, given your contributions to the GA project, we are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some minor issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Eric Gascoigne Robinson's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I've left this notice here because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies and feel free to disregard this message ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 19:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - the prose is looking much better, and I have passed the article's reassessment. Nice job ;) I think the images will probably get flagged up at some point (there seems to be a growing preference for the {{Information}} template), but IMO as long as they are properly licensed that will do for GA. Thanks! EyeSerene^TALK 17:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Robinson article

Thanks for your note regarding photo of the picket boat I added to Wiki Commons. Regret I can't add to the comments made when last we corresponded on 10th May of this year. If I've misinterpreted the criteria, then the photo will have to go? Regards Ptelea (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing

Are you asking about image licenses? The only list page I know is this one on Commons, which lists all the tags (other than fair use/non-commercial which are not permitted) along with a brief description. Anonymous-EU sounds like the one you might be after (assuming the image is from the EU :P)? EyeSerene^TALK 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Harvey

Whoops! Ok, I have removed that... Rather embarrassing don't you think? If you can't put more links as refs into the lead, thats fine, just say so, otherwise, I will pass the article if that is the case. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has passed, I just didn't have time to put it in the corresponding section on the GA page. If you could do that, that would be great. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving James Leiths

You moved James Leith (Peninsular War) to James Leith (British Army officer); why? James Leith (Scottish VC) was also a British Army officer, and this non-disambig seems unfair to both of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers

Perhaps you're right, but based on his previous history of disruption (and lack of producing any good quality encyclopedic content) I tend to regard his presence on any talk page as a nuisance. He's a self-admitted cohort of certain editors involved in the recent Troubles ArbCom case, and as this diff shows he's clearly got his own opinions about the bombing in question. His (and other people's) talk page archives make for interesting reading, for just a few examples of the trouble he causes see here, here, here and here. The latter is particularly telling, as he was wearing orange tinted glasses and acting as a blatant apologist for a disruptive editor who turned out to be an abusive sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas for more information on that one). Thus I rate his presence on any Troubles related articles as highly suspect, especially when it's posted with an inflammatory header and claiming the BBC are wrong because they don't agree with his own POV. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your intervention here. I am afraid that both One Night In Hackney and myself have been involved in the recent ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles, as you may or may not be aware. I am not quite sure why I got a WP:CIVIL warning, but anyway I don't think there's much point continuing the discussion further and I have already made it clear that I do not intend to edit the article.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Victory

I think there Are quite a few reasons for saying Victory was 100 guns. She's listed in Colledge as such. She was a rebuild of a previous 100 gun ship. Also, Lavery's 'Ship of the Line' lists her as 100 guns, and there is no evidence of a rebuild or refit to carry more in her seven years of service. This was at a time when the construction of Royal Navy warships had been standardised (in 1716), and you can see the exact breakdown of Victory's armament on the article page, amounting to 100 guns. Ships carrying 110 guns (or more) did not, as far as I can tell, start entering service until the end of the eighteenth century, following the influences of the new French first rates, the largest of which mounted that many and more. I think it would be best to leave it as the accepted figure, to put a reference saying where the 100 gun figure comes from (I think Lavery would be best as a source) and perhaps a note saying where your source differs. Benea (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]