User talk:Saberwyn/archive four

Congratulations

On the AHS Centaur article passing its A-class review. It's well deserved. --Nick Dowling 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that if no-one actually objects to the A-class nomination then the article is promoted at the end of the nomination period (which seems to be rather flexible) and the comments on Centaur were really nit-picking. When I was working on bringing Axis naval activity in Australian waters from A-class to FA standard I asked User:Cla68 for his input and advice on the article, which was very valuable. It's probably best to wait a week or so before nominating for FA-status to highlight that the article is stable and to give you some time to have a fresh look at the text. I'll print it out and do a copyedit in the next few days. --Nick Dowling 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a go at copy-editing the article but couldn't find too much to fiddle with. The only suggestion I'd make is that it might be interesting to expand the coverage of the female nurses as their deaths seem to have been a particular focus of the wartime outrage and subsequent propaganda but who they were and the public reaction aren't really mentioned in the article. --Nick Dowling 12:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the only detail on the nurses I have in any of my reference books, but I don't think that it adds much at all, or even if the addition fits into the paragraph's topic and wording. --Nick Dowling 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i loved the article, and had some nitpicks so nitpicky i was going to pop them here instead of wasting discussion space on the main article, but now i'm thinking i won't lol ( i will anyway). especially since several of them are likely american english issues. on the non-english front you are a bit inconsistant with year linkages. the last paragraph, for example you got about 8 years linked, yet in the first four paragraphs no year is linked (only the complete date). as a reader (not an editor or encyclopedian) i'd love to see you drop 1938 and 1941 from paragraph two, the overview is in date order and those episodes are written about in depth in the approriate and dated section. and lastly i'd be interesting in reading about the structure of the memorial pictured. do the plaques explain the design? the link to coolangatta was dissapointingly unhelpfull, and the biblograph reference that seemed the most likely to be informative was a page listing, not an actual link. oh well. sorry for the nits :) Childhoodtrauma 00:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Milsonspointstationsyd.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Milsonspointstationsyd.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:AHS Centaur reflist

Hey, im pretty sure the code is correct it shows up as two for me, try purging your server cache, if that doesn't work let me know. Hossen27 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

nits bvol 2

ok...

>>>Dropping 1938 and 1941. I am confised as to where they are, and where they should be dropped from. Care to whack a block of text in front of me?

again this was a reader reaction not an editor reaction, the initial summary is shoved full of info. So much so that i found myself trying to skim out a few less critical details. those details are covered extremely well in the paragraphs below, so i would think we could do without those dates for sure. so much happened in her history i'm not sure how much more tightening the introduction to her story could stand. read the paragrph without it and if you don't agree ignore the suggestion..

The Scottish-built vessel was launched in 1924 as a combination passenger liner/freighter, and operated a trade route between Western Australia and Singapore via the island of Java, carrying passengers, cargo, and livestock.[1][2] Centaur served in both civilian and military capabilities, and during her career was involved in towing a damaged Japanese whale-chaser in 1938, and recovering German survivors of the engagement between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran in 1941

on the links to years. i hate em. i'd gut them all. when someone talks about oh janurary 15, 1972 maybe i will take a look at that date, but the year 1932? however it is "wiki" to do so. But consistancy is easier to deal with than inconsistancy. and whatever you decide you will face the possiblity of 1000 wiki self editors changing it anyway. but consider the first two lines

>>>Australian Hospital Ship (AHS) Centaur[I] was a hospital ship during World War II, which was attacked and sunk by a Japanese submarine in 1943. Of the 332 medical personnel and crew aboard, 268 died.

The Scottish-built vessel was launched in 1924 as a combination passenger liner/freighter, and operated a trade route between Western Australia and Singapore via the island of Java, carrying passengers, cargo, and livestock.

UNLINKED

and the bottom of the article? the last paragraph has every date linked. the last line i typical

>>>>It was removed in 1992 to make way for a display related to the Vietnam War.[107]

LINKED

i might suggest the compromise of not linking any year that stands alone, and linking all dates of "month, day, year", format. in some sense it looks like that may have been something attempted at one time, as many of the early unlinked dates eventually link when they show up in a full format. but then there are some dates linked twice in the back-to-back sentences while other places that is avoided.

>>>>The media were notified of Centaur's sinking on May 17, 1943, but were ordered not to release the news until it had been announced in Parliament by Prime Minister John Curtin.[71] This announcement was made on the afternoon of May 17.[72]

both linked!

on the memorial-- i did attempt some minor searches into finding out its, ummm, design history because it seems non-representative by its photo. so i can understand the problem. Shame. but perhaps unavoidable.

i also think a few commas could stand removal. and on the "two peoples seperated by a common language front" the 60 minutes here have 'stories', while newspapers have 'articles', so i had to re-read that sentence the first time though. that is not something that should be change if the originating version of 60 minutes refers to its pieces as 'articles'.

realisitcally i liked it, i'd be happy to see it featured (shame it missed last month where certain days would make it more appropriatly featured). and the points i did make were literally small enough that i did decide they didnt even merit a discussion of the disccusion section of the article itself :) always willing to nit pick past the usefullness for it to be done, but ultimately if none of this is helpfull, ignore immediately.

and if you have copious free time, i'd love to see something on the limerick on wiki. even a stub! (a search of "8,742 ton freighter Limerick" on a search engine gave nothing.) maybe i'll scrape up some money and bounty it...

grrrr

i messed up so had to stop to figure out what i accidently deleted:)

i did manage to pull a few commas and do even less unsavory things for about a third of the article. if it was unhelpful let me know and i wont do any more.

two things though... the austrialian pound linkage appears broken (and not because of me i think)

and this phrase...

>>>>unable to deal with the quantity and the injuries of the casualties

i got such an urge to try and replace injuries with something since it seems that injuries than casualties are redundant. something like "quanity and types of injuries" or maybe "qunatity and severity of the injuries of the casualties".. but im not sure either was valid so i left the original in place.

perhaps even "ovrwhelmed by the quantity of the casualties" and just remove the injuries part?

oh well

sback to the hockey game....

ok did a bit more (up to "attacker") two things i left. In american enlish the phrase "A RAAF Avro Ansen" should be "An RAAF.... wasn't sure that was universal though (the "an" before vowel SOUNDS instead of just vowels)

and "portside oil fuel tank" --know nothing abot ships so that is likely a correct designation but it did seem posible it should be fuel-oil tank instead. a phrase (fuel-oil) which is used later in the article as well.

other than that, a few more commas and stuff. tried to keep the same tense in a few sentences. a bit rough during some of the compound ones... oh well. ducks win the cup :) Childhoodtrauma 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

lol. no problems. ducks are NHL hockey. championship decided tonight. ducks won. yea pretty much a north american sport, but hey, who knows, i used to watch aussie rules football years ago at 3 am (what is up with the white coats for the judges?!?)! and didnt you hang out in boston? they have a team! or is there a boston down under as well?

anyway raaf, if pronounced, you are right (and one of the reasons i left it "a" and then asked). looked similar to RAF (royal air force) so i assumed it was pronounced R-A-A-F as raf is pronounced R-A-F. my bad.

I'll destroy another section in a day or two...Childhoodtrauma 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AHS Centaur syntax issue

Hey, there seems to be a syntax error in the in-line citations causing them to not register in the reference list. I got too frustrated not being able to finding it so hopefully you can. Hossen27 08:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries I've done it a few times myself. Good eye I just couldn't find it. Also if you still cant see the two column ref list i am about to use a template istead of what we have now, ope you can see this one. Hossen27`

Very unusual but not a big issue, still a very good article. Hossen27

bad day at black rock

lost the entire update i was working on. will try to remember th main ones i had written about. may have missed one or something i edited and gave a reason for. sorry... got to memorials (yea almost the end, but i am really fried lol)

>>>>>>>>>>Although initially ordered to perform the conversion, efforts by the Department of the Navy, the Admiralty, and authorities in New Zealand and the United States of America caused the completed conversion to be undone..

left as is although i think i'd prefer something like  : The initially ordered conversion was performed...

basically the opening makes it sound as if the conversion was not taking place, only ordered, until the end of the sentence and we catch up it had been a fait accompli

>>>>>>>>> lost where it is in the work but on the rumor section, i did change "these" to "this" on the last bit. seemed to me by the end of the rumor section you were talking about a specific notion (japan 'knew' war goods aboard) and that a singular worked better. I could be wrong.. but i did change it

>>>>>>>During the investigation many of the Japanese officers who had commanded submarines in Australian waters were interrogated, including Nakagawa on three seperate occasions.

perhaps two sentences would work there? during the...... interrogated. Nakadawa was interviewed three seperate times. as is, it sounds a bit like all officers might have been talked to three times. i left it alone though

>>>>>>>>>>>>These submarines attacked or sunk almost 50 merchant vessels, with 20 sinkings confirmed to be the result of a Japanese attack, and an additional 9 unconfirmed.

I think this might go better with just "attacked almost 50", then going with the 20 sinkings. "or" just seems a weird word there and makes the inital math seem funky until you realise, 50 is ATTACKED. 20 plus 9 is SUNK. and "and" is just incorrect.

something like : These submarines attacked nearly 50 merchant vessels and sunk at least 20 of them.

>>>>>>>>>>The finding was reported on A Current Affair, during which film of the shipwreck 170 metres underwater, which was claimed by discoverer Donald Dennis had been checked by the Navy, the Queensland Maritime Museum, and the Australian War Memorial to establish the identity of the vessel.

I'm a bit fried now so it might be me, but i don't think that is a sentence. missing a verb i think. sometimes hard to see with the wiki clutter links, but shouldn't, at least, be something like during which film of the shipwreck .... WAS SHOWN.. or WAS AIRED.. or something. seems the noun of "film" needs a partner that i can't find.. Childhoodtrauma 02:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fly Gibraltar

I see you added an AfD message and then removed it. There is no evidence that this 'airline' exists, there is no certainly no mention of it on the website of Astraeus, who are a real operator.

The CAA do not list it, and their licencing department say they know nothing about it. So much for 'we are waiting to be licenced'.

A prominent person in the trade here commented 'Smoke and Mirrors' which I found rather amusing as that was my view. I don't think imaginary airlines are good for either Gibraltar or Wikipedia.

However, I need a hand to get rid of it !

--Gibnews 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I will follow the recipe. Others were keen to critisise my attempts at deletion but not willing explain the detail. --Gibnews 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK been there and done that, I think I did something wrong as the Afd page opens in the edit mode. --Gibnews 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be working OK, thanks for your help on this. --Gibnews 07:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

last one

saw you removed 'unanswered' peer reviews. it that a bad thing?

obviously not much to look at, did a few things, most destructive was changing a sentence i didnt like into this "The centrepiece of the display was a scale model of Centaur, presented by Blue Funnel Line that included several items that were donated for display by the survivors, such as a lifejacket, a signal flare, and a medical kit. "

actually i'm pretty sure the ',' after survivors needs to still go. the original, and this modified version seem to assume the display items from the survivors were part of the scale model centerpiece (whihc is possible depending what the scale of the model was). if they were part of the display but NOT the centerpiece, the sentence needs to probably be something like

The centrepiece of the display was a scale model of Centaur, presented by Blue Funnel Line. The Display included several items that were donated by the survivors such as a lifejacket, a signal flare, and a medical kit.

good luck in the fa hunt

also was reading random stupid stuff and came across the date discussion, according to that, an editor whom should know listed the manual of style as saying not to link years alone, but lways like full dates. which is what i think was the basic stance you decided was appropriate anyway. just nice to be "right" lol.

Childhoodtrauma 23:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: AHS Centaur... FAC?

I think that you should go for it. The article looks great and I think that it would have an excellent chance of passing the FAR. --Nick Dowling 09:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started the article Japanese submarine I-177 as a stub to remove a significant red link. It looks like the FA nomination is going very well, but the article might help. --Nick Dowling 02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

congrats on the featured article status! Childhoodtrauma 23:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! The ease with which the FA nomination went through says everything about the quality of your work on the article. --Nick Dowling 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...well, if you're looking for a new challenge Attack on Sydney Harbour could very easily be brought to FA standard in my opinion - its already an excellent article, and just needs to be expanded and referenced. I'm planning to make it a priority. --Nick Dowling 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's already looking great! As the article has been established for a lot longer than the Centaur one, could I suggest that you post each section to the main article as you're happy with it rather than inserting the lot in one go? - making a major change to a semi-prominent article with lots of 'stakeholders' could be asking for trouble. --Nick Dowling 10:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bathurst class

Hi, I just noticed that you have 'Infobox Ship templating and Multiple Wikiproject templating of every single Bathurst class corvette' in your to-do list. When I wrote the HMAS Wagga article I found that the stats on Wagga's size and speed on the Seapower Centre - Australia website slightly differed from those in the Bathurst class infobox, so this may need to be either updated or tweaked for each ship (as the Bathursts were built over several years in several shipyards I imagine that there were some differences between units). --Nick Dowling 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Hello... sorry, but I had to revert your changes at Minutes to Midnight (disambiguation). As per the style guide, song titles and television episode titles are put in quotation marks, while album titles and television series titles are italicized. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Attack on Sydney Harbour

I think that it looks fantastic. I'd suggest that you start uploading parts of it to the main article. --Nick Dowling 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article passing A-class review! It's well deserved. --Nick Dowling 08:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's ready for a FA nomination now. --Nick Dowling 11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Nick Dowling 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Saberwyn, seems we have some things in common, being both ex-Normo and naval buffs. I was a seaman officer in the RAN and Merchant Navies for 29 years. I also note a pleasing grammatical pedantry on your part. If I can help with any naval articles or whatever, give a shout. Rumiton 10:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request notification

Hi there. I'm leaving a courtesy note to let you know that I am asking the closing admin to reconsider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth in popular culture. My arguments are laid out at User talk:Coredesat#Middle-earth in popular culture - pre-DRV request. As you took part in the original AfD, I'm notifying you so that you can add your opinion, either there or later if it goes to DRV. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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 14:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Necronimmortals.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Necronimmortals.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:WarhammerCypher.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:WarhammerCypher.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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! Wandalstouring 10:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:GenestealerBrood.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:GenestealerBrood.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

attack

how is it going?

probably going to be slower in getting though this one, just read the intro a few times, and might make some minor changes that you can change back etc, but there is a central issue i have with the into that is making the editing difficult to start. I suggest leaving the ulimate fate of the one submarine that did damage in the over night raid to the main body. as it is, not only does it break the narrative of the intro, it makes the pronoun in the next paragraph confusing

This midget submarine then disappeared, its fate remaining a mystery until its wreck was discovered in 2006 by amateur scuba divers off Sydney's northern beaches.

Immediately following this, the five fleet submarines responsible for delivering the midgets embarked on a ...

making this logically refer to the scubba divers' discovery an making the fleet seem to be australian instead of Japanese, etc...

Childhoodtrauma 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On a quick pass, I think you got everything. There are so many dashes and hyphens in there, it's hard to tell :-) Congrats on the FA ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

re:X-Wing

Hi. For examples, I recommend Star Destroyer, TIE fighter, and Snowspeeder (I'm also working on a sandbox for a general Walker article). For sources, I recommend those, as well as the StarWars.com databank, which has sections on the movies, EU, and "behind the scenes". Also, if you can find any real-world content (or major appearances/features left out) on the examples above from the sources you have, please add it to the articles so they have a better chance of reaching WP:GA. Thanks. — Deckiller 23:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Piggy-backing -- Deckiller gave me a heads up you're working on reworking X-wing, and your rewrite's looking like it's moving along great. In working on the TIE fighter article, I found that the easy-to-overlook "Marketplace"? "Shop"? links at the starwars.com databank gave me some suggestions in terms of finding merchandise-related stuff for that real-world perspective. Ditto sirstevesguide.com. --EEMeltonIV 05:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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! Kirill 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Gretchins.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Gretchins.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Greyknighttermsinators.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Greyknighttermsinators.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

Hello. After running into quite a few of your edits recently (we appear to have overlapping interests with WikiProjects Military history and Ships), I wanted to drop you an appreciative note for all the hard work you have done on naval articles. Kudos to you, sir! Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of Tribal class destroyer (1936)

Hello. Just wanted to drop a line to let you know that while adding WikiProject tags to Tribal class destroyer (1936) today, I downgraded the article from B- to Start-class. While the article is very good overall, it unfortunately fails the first criterion for B-class, specifically it lacks citations. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry for the mix up! Now that I double-check, the assessment [1] appears to have been assigned by an anonymous editor using an Department of Defence (Australia) computer. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

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 10:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

attack on sydney harbour

reread this entry a few times today (finally, sorry for the delay). Other than the typical thought that there may be too many commas, i didnt find a single of import thing that i wanted to change. the cleanup of the pronoun at the bigging was effective and looked like it removed a minimal of words. really nice job.

the only only only thing that had me pausing at all was the lead line of the main body of the article

"Six submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy were to be used in the attack on Sydney Harbour"

because i keep trying to figure out if six would be used, or six were originally planned to be used but less (or more) were actually used :)

really nicly done..

Childhoodtrauma 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the change. certianly flagged well as the original plan of six being used. the forces section does go on to mention which one of the 6th was sunk before the attack. Childhoodtrauma 18:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fremantle class patrol boat

Hello. I believe your addition [2] of a non-breaking space to the Fremantle class patrol boat article was an accident, so I reverted [3] it due to the fact that it broke the link in question. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:HMAS melbourne 2 crest.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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 10:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rotormidcyclelunapraksyd.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rotormidcyclelunapraksyd.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. —Angr 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Interdictorcruiser.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Interdictorcruiser.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

X-Wing

That's fucking boss. I like that article version tremendously. Brave-o! Howa0082 14:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

HMAS Stalwart (AD 215) on DYK

On 31 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Stalwart (AD 215), 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.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you, sir, on your fine article! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Mobile Suit

Template:Mobile Suit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bolter (aviation)

On 2 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bolter (aviation), 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.

--howcheng {chat} 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Mobile Suit

Please help me understand, as one of the contributors, recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit activity by expanding Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit#Ahem and thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you I respect your preferences and proceed accordingly. – Conrad T. Pino 05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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 14:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)

Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) 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/Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) 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. Haemo 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Haemo 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melbourne-Voyager collision, 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.

Cheers, Daniel 11:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On 27 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Moresby, 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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 02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be willing to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

HMAS Melbourne

Hi, The Flikr photoset I pulled 3 photos of Melbourne out of is at: http://flickr.com/photos/11360033@N04/sets/72157603350030732/ and has other images you might want to consider - though the quality isn't great. I stupidly uploaded the small versions of the images, and not the large version. User:Saberwyn/HMAS Melbourne (R21) is looking fantastic. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got some stuff on the fate of Melbourne's A-4s, but not much else I'm afraid. According to David Stevens et al's 'The Royal Australian Navy', the ADF had pretty much decided that purchasing a new carrier wasn't a good use of money before the 1982 election (the Navy seems to have still thought a replacement worthwhile, but not by much of a margin), so the article should reflect this. I'll add some stuff in later today. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and Happy New Year

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

		Military history service award
		For tagging and assessing 250 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be good to have your feedback/comments on the drive at the Tag & Assess workshop

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: HMAS Melboure rewrite Mark II

Were these significant refits? If they were just routine maintenance (which looks like it was the case) they should be integrated into the operational history section and the 'refits' section only cover the refits in which she was significantly modified. The amount of time she spent out of service is incredible, but this is in line with the service histories of the USN's carriers. No wonder the Navy always wanted two active carriers! (and the other services wanted Melbourne gone). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Date formats.

Tidying-up, as per Manual of style. Most Wikipedia users are readers, rather than editors, and as such have no accounts and hence no date preferences. --Pete (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Moresby, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Sources in Through the Fire and Flames

Thanks for the clarification I changed it to just that Totman is seen drinking in the video which seems obvious. It also looks like the label is intentionally obscured in the video. My main concern is that I see a lot of citation needed tags that are ambiguous. The note seemed like it wanted a source that mentions wether or not Totman was drinking and not that the citation is needed as to what is being drunk in the video.--Chinakow (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect in User:Saberwyn/Bathurst class corvette

Hi. I've been fixing erroneous references to Australia in the War of 1939–1945 and eliminating redirects to this article via Official History of Australia in the War of 1939–1945. One of these redirects is in User:Saberwyn/Bathurst class corvette; but as this article resides in your user space, I'll let you eliminate it. Thanks. R. A. Hicks (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Well young man, as an old codger nearly four times your age, let me just say how impressed I am with your work on HMAS Melbourne. I read it with my best jaundiced eye, slept on it, and at the end could only come up with nit pickers. Your collision giffs are great. I'm impressed... Geronimo20 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done an initial nit picker with an edit summary Set more coherent format for references. Revert if you aren't happy with it. Cheers. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle Cougar

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Battle Cougar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Battle Cougar. Deb (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne/Evans

Thanks for the note—I'll take a look at it soon. If I haven't gotten to it in a few days, please do remind me; I'm in the midst of several FA reviews but I don't want to forget you. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You've mainly addressed my sourcing concern, thanks; I know it must have been a fair amount of work. I remain concerned, though, about comments like "King...was seen...to be biased", "King's attitude, performance, and conflict of interest were criticised by ... the Press", and "significant attempts were made to reduce the US destroyer's culpability and place partial blame for the incident on Melbourne". You have sourced all those statements, but they are unattributed in the text, and therefore come across as some sort of global condemnation rather than the reaction of an aggrieved party in a dispute. By way of comparison, imagine if I quoted "Stevenson was seen to be careless and negligent" and "the RAN was criticized for attempting a coverup", all referenced to American books but not qualified in the text as American opinion/reaction—I completely made those up, obviously, but I hope you can see the problem.

Since we can't find any significant non-US and non-Australian coverage, it seems like the best way to proceed might be to compartmentalize the two 'sides' and present them as such in the article. I propose a reorg of the Inquiry section:

1. Proceedings - a strictly factual summary of the inquiry proceedings (who, when, where, etc and the official findings)
2. Reaction in the US - the subsequent 3 courts-martial
3. Reaction in Australia - controversy over King's selection as president, accusations of bias in the proceedings, and info about Stevenson's court-martial and effect on his career

I think this would alleviate most of my concerns about POV here. What do you think? (and my apologies for proposing what will likely, in the end, be more work for you.) Maralia (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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) 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

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! Kirill 16:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ahriman40k.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ahriman40k.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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 21:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pacific class patrol boat

Hi, I've recently created an article on the Pacific class patrol boats which you might be interested in. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's excellent! --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Melbourne (R21) is an outstanding article and the only suggestion I have is to trim the bits on the Voyager and Frank E. Evans collisions further as they're covered in dedicated articles on the topics. The material on the Royal Commissions and inquiries should probably be pruned (as they're not directly about Melbourne) while all the material on the collisions should remain. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's great. I've just removed the POV tag as the sources and wording seem fine. I'd say that the article is ready for an A-class review --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Daemon-prince.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Daemon-prince.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos for HMAS Melbourne article

I have been going through some old negatives and have found a few that might be uuseful for the Melbourne article. As you know I have alread put up a couple that are on there, but I have some more (actually I have lots, but let's not over do this) - it takes my scanner a very long time to scan the negs at a reasonable resolution, so I will only be putting them up slowly, but I notice that most of the photos in the articel are from early service, so I will chuck in what I have got.

Currently I am scanning a photo of a tracker on the catapault and I have one of a tracker just launched, not sure which one will prove to be the best, wait and see. I think I have a photo of the DDG HMAS Brisbane taken at sea, if I find that, I will look to see if there is an article for that ship. Anyway, just pluggin away. The Melbourne article is looking pretty good to me at the moment.

Nick Thorne ^talk 13:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! It wasn't Brisbane, it was Perth - should have realised, if I had only thought about it, I always knew it was Perth that accompanied us to RIMPAC 80. FYI, I have put the photo up on the HMAS Perth (D 38) page. P.S. Do you think I have over done it with the photos on the Melbourne article? it's hard to know when to stop somethimes <grin> Nick Thorne ^talk 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

spacing

Thanks, i know i messed it up, but on the edit window i couldn't see what to do to fix it.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, had absolutely no idea about the strike needing to start to the right of the asterisk. As i said, i learned something, many thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New! BCAD drive from Milhist

Can I invite you to particpate in our new assessment drive? It's strictly for experienced editors and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match our new criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Chevrons (1000 articles) Golden Wiki First place

Traker wingtip clearance

Hi there, don't be too upset about the issue of the clearance, Hall did not say the superstructure but I can see how this could easily be interpreted as what he meant. Who lnows where he got his info from, and maybe he even thought it was to the island anyway. Even the new wording in the Melbourne article would probably be interpreted as meaning to the island by most readers. Unfortunately I have not yet been able to find source that lists the correct clearance to the island, if I do manage to find one, then I will alter tha article to show both figures and give a more complete picture of the reality of it. The fact is, things were damn tight on Melbourne, she was not designed to operate the aircraft we were using on her and I have to admit it did give us an enormous sense of pride to achieve what we did on the old lady. Nick Thorne ^talk 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Melbourne (R21)

Passed A-class review. Well done. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image query - HMAS Melbourne's bell

I took the photo at the Navy Heritage Centre in Sydney. I also took a photo of the ship's anchor which is on the Commons page, but can't figure out where it fits in the article. The bell is arguably more important anyway, as ship's bells are considered a key symbol of the ship. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine that she had several anchors. A ship that big would certainly need them! --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For being the first Wikipedian to promote an article on an aircraft carrier to A-class status I hereby award you the WikiProject Ships Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For being the first Wikipedian to promote an article on an aircraft carrier to FA-class I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I relaise that second award is a little preemptive, but I believe that your article will go featured sometime during the work week, and I have school work to see to, so I am giving you this award now so you can reveal in it when Melborne does go featured :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fire and Flames

Probably. ---Torchflame (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

the permanent campaign to reduce or eliminate excess noncontributory verbiage

Glad you agree. I find in particular that a sentence containing "the fact that" can nearly always be improved. —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Melbourne FAC attempt

Hi, I am done for the moment. I have been mostly trying to just pick on small things, I do not think we have conflicted so far. If I spy any typos or other minor things like that, I may still nick in for a quick edit, but I will avoid editing the entire article and stick to section edits, that way we are unlikely to cross swords, so to speak. I see my role as entirely supportive of your efforts, the only reason that I have not made a comment on the FAC page is that I consider myself a substantive contributor tot he article and so consider myself inelligible. Nick Thorne ^talk 00:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do have a couple verticle photos of Melbourne, the full photo of the one that I used in the wingtip clearance does not quite include the bow of the ship. I do have another one that I found just recently that I took at the same time, but I have not yet scanned the neg and I am not sure just how good it is. Most of these I had previously only seen after getting them printed commercially years ago and some of them which were pretty ordinary in the print have scanned up very well. I'll scan the new one and I can also give you a copy of the other. Would you like me to email them first so you can see if they are suitable for what you want? Might take me a day or two, I'm in the middle of an epic clean up here. It's amazing how much junk you can collect over the years! Nick Thorne ^talk 09:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've also got sdome deck shots of trackers, folding wings, in the lift and some other stuff, I planned to upload them anyway, I just didn't think we neede to over do the thing on the main article. Keep your eyes peeled on the Commons, I'll categorise them for Melbourne so they shoulf be easy enough to find.

No probs with the license thing, I'm not interested in trying to make money out of them, I'm only too happy that I can contribute. Nick Thorne ^talk 09:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CPI

No problem, but let's keep a look out for these data—they must be somewhere. Tony (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article on HMAS Melbourne passing FA review! As an economist, I still think that the CPI is a missleading measure of warship prices as the cost of most kinds of military equipment has consistantly increased faster than the CPI as technology advances and limited competition do their things. The figure of AU$113.6 million 2007 dollars for both carriers in the article is clearly not realistic in my opinion given that the two Canberra class large amphibious ships, which are roughly as sophisticated as the carriers were in their day, are going to cost about $3 billion - while the carriers were sold for a low price, I doubt that the British would have reduced their cost by that much, especially given that a considerable ammount of work was needed to finish the ships. The conversions from the 1960s onwards look more realistic at face value, but are also serious under-estimates. For instance, according to the 2006-07 Defence Annual Report the annual cost of the Navy's air arm (which is both smaller and, arguably, less sophisticated than the air arm prior to 1982 - though the Seahawks were until recently the most expensive aircraft the ADF has ever purchased) was no less than $587,952,000, which is much higher than the estimated $89.5 million for Melbourne in 1977 (I assume that this includes her running costs and the costs of operating her air group - if not, the cost of running the Navy's 13 frigates in 2006-07 was over $1.8 billion, which works out at about $141 million per frigate per year - given that wages are a major component of this, the cost of operating Melbourne today would be several times this figure). That said, you might be interested to know that the ABS recently placed all editions of Year Book Australia online and they could have the figures you're after - if the series goes back that far, which it may not. --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to summarise, my concern is that the conversions don't reflect the true cost of operating the carrier in modern terms. The conversions provide a rough estimate of the ammount of household goods the money used on the carrier would have bought if it had been used for this purpose instead, which is certainly of some value, but this leads to readers possibly coming away from the article thinking that naval aviation is much cheaper than is actually the case. I don't know what the best wording solution is, but it's not correct to state things like Melbourne's 1967-69 modernisation "cost AU$8.5 million (AU$79.6 million in 2007)" as the cost of performing this modernisation today would probably be much higher as the cost of ship modifications has increased faster than the cost of the 'bundle' of household goods used to calculate the CPI. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just whinge, I've been a bit bold and edited the article to better explain the conversions. This diff: [4] shows how I've vauged up the figures. You should cite the CPI data you used to make these conversions (presumably ABS Cat. 6401 Consumer Price, Australia - if so the month of issue should be noted as the ABS sometimes adjusts its figures - or the historical data on the Reserve Bank's website) --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

a small token

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Congratulations on the promotion of HMAS Melbourne (R21) to FA! My most heartfelt thanks for the time, care, and especially the patience you put into addressing my nitpicking points since the peer review back in January. I'm awfully pleased with the article, and look forward to doing it again (hopefully with less of the painful bits)! Maralia (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done that man!

Bravo Zulu for your work in getting the HMAS Melbourne article to FA. A magnificent effort. Nick Thorne ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 14:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

multirefs

I always hate seeing 30 refs with only 21 sources. As a matter of opinion do you think named ref links(<ref name="Larry">[Larry.com Larry Page]</ref>)should be the first refence, the last refernce, or a middle reference? --Lemmey (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Bathurst class corvettes

Is it OK for me to add items to this list on your user page? (I hope so, as I've just added about 8 ships!) --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't see any reason why a comprehensive and well set out list like that one can't become a featured list... --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 02:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem!

Hey. Sorry, not sure how to send messages on wiki yet. No problem about the article though. I hate seeing false information.WTFitsRacerD (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Badges

I've always found the infobox an odd place for images. It lends itself perfectly well to an official textual description, as at HMS Arrow (H42) but I think it looks a bit out of place in the infobox, especially when it displays halfway in the box. On the other hand it seems a nice illustrative feature to lift out and bring a little prominence to in the introductory section. At the moment its a standard applied to all of the S, T and U classes that have badges, so I wouldn't really be in favour of piecemeal changes that break that convention. I understand what you mean about the risk of pinching the text, but it doesn't seem to me to be that much of an issue. There's also cases where a ship has had two badges, in which case a badge can illustrate the appropriate sections, but would rather overwhelm the infobox. Benea (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't work for your Melbourne example (actually there are a lot of images on that page that do exactly the same thing, ie. risk pinching the text. Have you considered an image gallery?), as it is too big and in the absence of a specific section discussing the badge, and with a surfeit of images anyway, the infobox is probably the only place it can go. This doesn't on the other hand apply to Tabard (with the section about the name where the fact she was probably named after the Tabard, the badge serves as a little piece of evidence, neat eh?) so I agree it's probably best to leave it to personal preference on how the format looks and works in each specific case. As to Royal Navy histories, there are many excellent books about ship services in the Second World War. For accessibility the best online resource is probably Geoff Mason's ship histories. Queenborough's entry is here. It's quite thorough, specifically about that ship and very reliable. Good luck, Benea (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff review

Nope, not harsh at all, in fact thanks for contributing some good ideas, I'll action them soon. Let me action some of your ideas first, before you go to "town" (ooh er misses, be gentle, I've been nurturing this baby for 2 n half months) on the article, and I've also updated the review.

P.S. Sorry for the late reply I was called away for a day Ryan4314 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas, especially in regards to the excess links and merging bracketed information in for flow. I'm a little more reserved on the idea of cutting back the refs, only because those refs are the only refs citing that particular piece of infomation.

I've looked over your rewrite and there is a few things I feel I should point out:

• In the first line which says: Cardiff was built in the first batch of Type 42 or "Sheffield class" destroyers. Do we really need the extra "Type 42" link, considering we have a "see also, Type 42" tag just one line above it?
• In regards to the incident with TC-92, I deliberately made the description of the event vague, as there is (of course) some controversy concerning it. The British say they missed because she was at maximum range, the Argentines will say she dodged because of skillfull flying. In particular the word "damaged", some Argentine sources state that due to one of the missiles passing so close, that it left a strange sticky brown substence on the tail (which could be construed by some as "damage"). I think it will be better just to have the basics, Cardiff fired, TC-92 made it home and bam! end off. After all, we provide the "external links" section for readers if they want to further their research.
• You missed a space in "intoGroup X-ray" in the Gulf section ;)

Everything else is ace, top stuff honestly. I completely give my blessing for you to make the proposed changes in your rewrite, after we have a little chat about TC-92. I'm keen to read your reply, it's obvious you know your stuff :) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've been admiring your work, I'm very impressed. replies;

• I too have been pondering about the "Sheffield class" link, perhaps we should just drop the whole link all together?
• In regards to TC-92, I don't think a typical "controversy bit" would be appropiate. Problem is, it wasn't a very major event of the war, in fact a lot of Cardiff's actions were drowned out. However in hindsight (re; my previous reply concerning TC-92) I guess I could actually expand on the incident a little more (just a little though, sources for it are so spurios lol). So how about I expand that bit in about the next week or so (I'm away at the mo and I like to do proper contributions from my home computer)?

I'll happily merge in 95% of your rewrite (tomorrow though, as it's bedtime over here), barring TC-92 as per above. It's a real pleasure to meet such a helpful editor, with great ideas and is considerate to the feelings of others regarding big rewrites, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Merged your C/E in, you might wanna check the review & article, there's been some other great contributions. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, I expanded the TC-92 (and Dagger attack) sections as promised, would you mind giving them a quick C/E, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. May 22nd
2. I've changed the bit about the 3rd dagger, let me know what you think. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks again for the help. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, I just made some teeny changes to your edits, let me know what you think. In regards to "the detection" by the Tidespring, I'd just leave it out if I was you. Ya see, the Tidespring was essentially just a supply ship, it's unlikely it detected an incoming contact as opposed to the 2 Anti-Aircraft vessels (Bristol & Cardiff) in the group. Plus the veteran Ken I spoke to says he doesn't even remember Tidespring having any radar (of that sort). If memory serves, that particular piece of information came from the Navy News "day by day", which has been a little unreliable. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also isn't there any room for this ref, I just thought it was so good. Ryan4314 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea I know, it's coz originally they thought Exeter got it, but she wasn't even in the area that night. Don't worry though, Lawrence Freedman says it was Cardiff. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

HMS Cardiff Featured Article Candidate

Hello, this is a generic message, as a contributor to a previous review of HMS Cardiff, you may be interested to know that I plan to submit her for an FA review. Would you mind taking a quick look at the article and letting me know if you think it's ok, would be muchly appricated, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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) 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Eye Witness Account

Hi Saberwyn, Yes, after further reading the guidelines I understand that the material doesn't qualify as being professionally published. But, sure, I'm appending the account here; perhaps it would be useful to the Australian naval archives. Not that it matters, but I'm a journalist and novelist, having spent most of my career until recently as a writer and editor of narratives for Page One of The Wall Street Journal. I moved over a couple of years ago to a magazine. I'd actually once pitched a nonfiction book in which I wanted to retrace my dad's wartime Pacific trek to see what had become of the places he landed on, Engebi and Guam among them. I didn't get a bite back then but I haven't totally given up on the idea.

This is the account of William Rexford Wells, at the time a private first class serving as a captain's aide aboard the USS Chicago. Wells had joined the Marines right out of high school in the fall of 1940, underwent bootcamp at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego and entered Sea School after bootcamp. He was assigned to Pearl Harbor and shipped out to Pearl aboard a gasoline tanker in February 1941 and reported for duty aboard the Chicago on February 26. The Chicago was out to sea on exercises during the infamous raid on Pearl; by the time of the Battle of Sydney Harbor, Wells had also served as a machine gunner during the Battle of the Coral Sea. The Wells Account: The Battle of Sydney Harbor is not mentioned in history books that describe the Battle of Waterloo or the Battle of Gettysburg. The only reference I know of is in Admiral Samuel Morrison's “History of Naval Operations,” Volume IV. A pitched battle was fought within the confines of Sydney Harbor by the USS Chicago and the destroyer USS Perkins against two Japanese submarines. Let’s first go back a little. After joining the Australian Task Force, Major Spencer Burger, the C.O. of the Marine detachment on board, decided one of his Marines should learn something about Navy signaling. I was “volunteered” for the job, so for four hours a day I trained on the signal bridge with Navy signalmen to learn semaphore and blinker lights. Learning semaphore was easy, and within a short time I could send and receive reasonably well. The blinker lights, a Morse code, were a different story. I couldn't practice on the bridge, so what I learned was self-taught with a flashlight in front of a mirror below decks. I did learn the code, but never got very good at sending or receiving. I could read perhaps four or five letters in a row – and then miss the next few. This would turn out to be of some help in the Battle of Sydney Harbor. After the Coral Sea battle, we returned to Sydney where the Chicago went into dry dock for minor repairs. Two weeks in dry dock in Sydney Harbor was a serviceman’s dream. “Port” and “starboard” liberty was in force, with half of the ship's crew going ashore one day and the other half the next. By now, I had been promoted to the rank of corporal, and my pay was a little higher. When we came out of dry-dock, the other ships in our task force were on patrol, so we would wait for their return. Our ship was anchored about one-half mile from the Sydney bridge that crosses the harbor, with the destroyer Perkins between the bridge and us. The Chicago’s bow was toward the bridge, not toward the harbor entrance. On the night of May 31, 1942, I had duty as corporal of the guard on the 8 till midnight shift. A boatswain’s mate, the officer of the deck, and I looked forward to a dull, boring watch. Half of the crew was ashore, and, though liberty boats ran every hour on the hour, the only crewmen returning were those who were dead drunk, dead broke or both. Our watch was the deck amidships where the gangway was; also there were six dim lights so men could find their way below. I had gone on duty at 2000 hours (8 p.m.) and, as I expected, it was dull and boring. A Dutch submarine was tied up to an old ferryboat that had been converted into a barracks ship, and there the sub’s crew slept. At about 2200 hours the signal lights began blinking as I was leaning over the rail looking toward the harbor entrance. I thought I would see if my signal training would help. I read five letters: “sub en----.” I couldn’t get the rest of the message, but I did tell the officer of the deck that the message contained something about a sub. He dismissed it as “probably one of ours” and we forgot about it. At 2257 hours, I heard what I thought was a liberty boat approaching in the dark on our starboard side. I thought it a little odd, because they generally came around our bow from Garden Island. The craft came into sight under our dim lights. To our amazement, it was a Jap midget submarine! These little boats had been used in the Pearl Harbor attack with no success, and now the Japanese were trying again. We three saw it at the same time and yelled, “Japs!” We went to general quarters with the klaxon horn going full blast and the boats'n mate on the loudspeaker yelling, “Jap sub off the starboard bow."” Men popped from below in their underwear and raced to the guns. All hell broke loose in the middle of Sydney Harbor. The sub was too close to the ship for us to bring the guns to bear on it, and it was submerging. That didn't keep the Marines and sailors from trying. The forward machine guns opened up with .50-caliber slugs ricocheting off the water toward the Sydney Zoo. One slug killed a lion, probably the only one killed by Marines in World War II. A five-inch gun got off one round that also ricocheted over the Sydney suburbs and exploded God knows where. Apparently, there was no damage and no one was hurt. The destroyer Perkins tried to locate the sub with sonar but couldn't. Two Australian corvettes joined the search. At about 30 minutes past midnight, the sub fired two torpedoes which crossed our bow and missed! One ran under the Dutch sub and exploded on the ferryboat where the Dutch sailors were sleeping, killing and wounding several. The other ran onto the beach of Garden Island and failed to explode. A recall went out to the men on liberty, and soon they were arriving in droves. At 0215 we were ordered out of the harbor. We got under way and, with the Perkins leading the way, cleared the harbor with approximately one-fourth of our crew ashore, hoping we had abandoned them until after the war. We stayed at sea until 1430 on June 1 and returned to pick up the rest of our crew. Two midget subs were located by Australian corvettes; whether the crews committed suicide or not was never known. After the war, Japanese naval officers claimed four midgets were launched from mother subs, but only two were ever accounted for by either side. The Battle of Sydney Harbor was over. The score: one lion killed, two Japanese subs destroyed, and an unknown number of Dutch sailors killed or wounded. The Australians raised one sub and put it on display; we had to pay admission to see it. The netcutter on the warhead of the second torpedo was mounted on a plaque and presented to the captain and crew of the Chicago. It hung in the captain's passageway and went down with the ship in '43. Admiral Morrison's description of the battle is fairly accurate, except in one detail. He claimed the sub was sighted 300 to 400 yards on the starboard side of the Chicago, but 20 yards would be more accurate. I could have hit it with a baseball. We didn’t get a battle star for this one, but we sure raised hell for a few minutes. Jaxnandy (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ark Royal

Sorry, I meant to get back to you sooner. I got caught up with preparatory work on HMS Ganges (shore establishment). When you'll read it you might get some idea! It's an utter nightmare as to which ship was going by which name at which stage! I agree with what you say in essence. The main stumbling point for me is the citations/unit conversions sort of thing. I love writing articles but get all bogged down on the little formatting details, where I really am quite out of my depth. Feel free to mess about with the sinking section. I know in detail what happened, but of the course the downside is that it tends to read fine to me, but the general reader would be confused. Any help here would be much appreciated!

Also thanks for your very kind words! In a way Ark Royal's tragically short career means that everything can be covered in a level of detail in a way that wouldn't be practical in a longer lived ship. I only find it frustrating that the article is being held up by things that read fine to me, but as I'm the author, I can't really put myself in the general reader's shoes and work out how to phrase differently. Don't worry about changes, if I disagree I'll raise it with you but otherwise feel very free to give it a working over. Many thanks, Benea (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a run through the points for clarification that you've raised, I'll try to answer them as best i can, and let you work out how best to incorporate them:

• I'm not entirely sure where the Ark Royal had gone, nor are the sources. She was possibly over the horizon when the reconnaissance flight came by, and they were dissuaded from looking further by the battleships' AA fire.
• There was minor attrition, the loss of the odd aircraft during a mission, but overall by this stage losses were still very light. The replacement aircraft were to top up the numbers and ensure that she had the maximum sized air wing at all times.
• Yes it would have been the same day, she was back off the coast by the early hours of the 28th and flying aircraft off to strike at various targets.
• Potentially the war as a whole. The British surface fleet dominated the Atlantic, but its hold on the Mediterranean was extremely tenuous as it faced not only the Italian fleet, but also the Italian and German air forces. The French fleet under German control would have given the Axis forces several extra capital ships and their escorts, making it much more difficult to hang on (but potentially not impossible). If the British fleet had been driven from the Mediterranean, they would have been unable to reinforce Crete (which fell anyway) or Malta (which would have almost certainly have fallen), whilst Rommel's forces would have been able to have been supplied largely without hindrance. The British 8th Army by contrast would have had to have been supplied by convoys around the African coast. That this was simply insufficient is shown by the fact that the Admiralty occasionally risked convoys across the Mediterranean when the 8th Army was desperately in need. Basically it would have been very difficult to remain in North Africa, and the Middle Eastern provinces of the Empire would then have been open to occupation. The later Allied landings in Africa, Italy and the South of France would have required the re-establishment of allied naval power in the region, which would probably have been a due to a much larger US Navy presence than was actually the case. In short, it had the potential to alter the entire course of the war.
• A total of 15 Blackburn Skuas were launched against the Scharnhorst.
• The attacks on Malta at this time were by the Italian Air Force.
• At the same time, the attacks were a diversionary tactic whilst a fast convoy was rushed through to Malta whilst the Italian naval and air forces were distracted by the raids (so the theory went).
• Not really on the diplomatic side, but a bit more so on the military front. The fleet remained offshore as a show of strength, whilst Gaullist officers attempted to convince their fellow Frenchmen to throw their lot in with the Free French. It was essentially a French diplomatic expedition, backed up with British military force should it become desirable to use it. Some Free French aircraft flew off Ark Royal and landed at the city's airport, but they were promptly arrested. There were occasional clashes between British heavy fleet units, but they were ordered to only fire in self defence, or on French ships attempting to leave the harbour. The French attempted to force a landing but were repulsed, after which Ark Royal made several bombing raids on military installations. After more French resistance, the attempt was abandoned.
• Actually that seems to be a mistake. The action left the destroyer Lanciere damaged (no article). There were later reports that a cruiser had been damaged and disabled and a second strike was prepared to search and attempt to destroy this ship. This was however the Lanciere. Another attempted strike was made against the Italian battleships but to no effect, whilst the Lanciere escaped detection and returned to port. The strange thing was that the Italians themselves initially believed that one of their cruisers had been damaged as well, the Bolzano. As it turned out, this was untrue.
• The outcome was the convoy passed through unscathed. The two fleets had inflicted minor damage but had failed to successfully press home a tactically decisive engagement. It was a strategic victory for the British, they had got the convoy through and prevented the Italians from interfering with it. The battle also highlighted the reluctance of the Italians to engage unless the odds were highly in their favour.
• Ark Royal had been assigned to the Mediterranean since the end of the Norwegian campaign. She only briefly operated outside when special circumstances demanded, such as the hunt for commerce raiders and German heavy fleet units like the Bismarck, etc.
• I've changed 8th Army, as it seems to be being used incorrectly, as they grew out of the Western Desert Force which seems the more accurate terminology. Operation Compass had just been launched (9 December) and allied forces were advancing westward again, pushing the Italians out of Egypt and back into Libya.
• Gibraltar, on the tip of Spain, was a key strategic base for the Royal Navy. Malta could not be relied upon, and if the Spanish decided to support their follow fascists and push the British out of it, they would have been forced to operate out of ports on the British mainland, and Alexandria. In other words the entire Western Mediterranean would have been seriously under-defended. Britain knew they had little chance of defending Gibraltar against a Spanish invasion so they thought it wise to create the image that they were still strong and capable of winning.

Phew! Feel free to give me a bell if there's any other points I can clarify. Great work so far by the way! Thanks again! Benea (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've put in a citation for the confusion, and reworded it a bit. The British certainly mistook Lanciere for a cruiser, but the Italians might have known about the situation with the Lanciere, but had thought for some reason that the Bolzano had also received a hit. The Italian commanders would probably be expected to have a slightly clearer understanding of the positioning/status of their ships but the sources aren't explicit unfortunately as to what was reported. Jameson says the Italian report of a hit on the Bolzano was made in their communique after the battle, but doesn't say how long after. So potentially they could had thought the Lanciere and the others had gotten away and the Bolzano had been damaged (as the British thought), or they could have thought that both the Lanciere and the Bolzano had been damaged. I've made the statement a bit less explicit but feel free to reword.
• Pretty much. There was to be a summit in February between Franco and Mussolini. The British felt sure Mussolini would put pressure on Franco to move against the British in Gibraltar. This came just after HMS Illustrious (87) had barely survived a heavy bombing raid that put her out of action for over a year. Ark Royal was used to make a show of how effective the British fleet still was, to deter Franco from bowing to pressure and forcing the British out of Gibraltar. The subsequent raids seem to have worked, Franco returned from the summit and the Spanish remained neutral.
• Potentially a mistake here, it was a Swordfish rather than a Fulmar that went off the flightdeck with the depth charges. It was the following day after it had become clear the contact was lost, and routine patrols were being sent up in the hope of re-establishing contact. Somerville only got word of the sighting at 18:50, a later scout sent out immediately to confirm the position for a bombing run failed to spot them so the strike was postponed. The search began again the next day and it was at some point on this day that the catapult sent the Swordfish into the sea. Benea (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It all looks accurate and reads well to me, so no problems here. I've had a go at tracking down the information about the different squadrons. There's not a huge amount about unfortunately, and they tend to reform and move about very suddenly, but I've put what I could find down for consideration. Thanks again, and I hope your work is going well. Benea (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The 8 different faces of Luna Park Sydney

I've never used one of these talk pages, so I'm sorry if I don't follow the rules about signing off etc. But I really really want to see some photos of the 8 different faces of Luna Park Sydney. Do you know where I could see them? Are all 8 photos in that book you mentioned that is for sale in the gift shop at the park?

one_sportychick

203.10.55.11 (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Beyond a historical information sign at the amusement park, I can't think of any location where images of the various incarnations of the face are collected. I'd like to do it for the article sometime, but finding images that meet the various usage requirements is proving difficult.

As for siging off on talk pages, users with accounts are able to use 4 tildes (~) to produce an automatic signature. (i.e. for me typing ~~~~ produces -- saberwyn 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)). This may not be effective for you as your I.P. will be displayed instead. Have you thought of creating an account?

Hope I've helped. -- saberwyn 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Serenity comics

Good work, mate. Just one thing: I think the amount of info for each series should be a bit more succint. I don't think you need entire sections and tables regarding the covers, or plot summaries that are that detailed. Such info belongs more properly in the individual articles. For now it's not a problem, but the article is of considerable length as it is, and if Whedon and Dark Horse continue to make more comics, the article will eventually generate size limits, esp once The Shepherd's Tale debuts. A good example, I think of what such series should look like in a summarization article like this one, when compared to the individual articles, can be seen by comparing The Ultimates 2 or The Ultimates 3 to The Ultimates. Other than that, it looks good. Nice job! Nightscream (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching you.

You've been added to a list of people to avoid. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ark Royal Squadrons

Looks jolly good! Sorry I've been a while in getting back to you, my access is a bit intermittent at the moment, and probably will be until the middle of next week or thereabouts. I'll have a go at writing up some of the redlinks later too. The armaments section currently stands with the design section I think, but I'm not terribly opposed to moving it out and combining the two. I'll see if Jameson has anymore information on that and the squadrons in general. Benea (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's ready for it then I'm all for it! I'm away from tomorrow until next weekend unfortunately, so perhaps we ought to hang fire on it until then, in case sourcing issues or similar come up? Benea (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've opened the new review here, your input would be greatly appreciated, and fingers crossed! Benea (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

I have nominated History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Allemandtando (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

I have nominated Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Allemandtando (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ark Royal A class

Congratulations, its passed A class! Do you think there's anything holding it back from a FA review? Benea (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Champion! I'll let you work your magic, and whenever you're ready we can start the review. Benea (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to your message on my talk page. The article looks great now, and I'd support it if it was nominated for FA status. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Deathwatch (Warhammer 40,000)

I have nominated Deathwatch (Warhammer 40,000), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathwatch (Warhammer 40,000). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)