▼ Latest message
|Threads older than 365 days may be archived by.|
I to have noted the entry in the book `The Ship-wrecks off North Norfolk` but after research carried out I am not certain that the information in that book is correct. It certainly conflicts with the information available on the Times online archive. In the Henry Blogg Museum at Cromer they have a copy of the book that was written by Captain Argüelles and his family. This also contradicts the information in that Book. To be fair the book was written more for the information for local divers and rather than a definitive reference to the many ship-wrecks of the coast here. There is also conflicting evidence as to the ownership of the SS Cantabria. In the WebPages of the Parliamentary questions raised at the time in the house of Lords, there is mention that the captain and his crew had initially stolen the ship from its rightful owner, A Zubizarreta Times Online Archive, Letter to the Editor dated 5 November 1938.This also conflicts with other information in the book. I have been unable to determine the sources for that book but have come to the conclusion that the information may be wrong.
Good evening Palmiped
Thank you for the notation of Grognard, I had not realised I had made so many edits on Wikipedia!
Thanks for pointers with regard to the references - this article is still a work in progress. I have added some additional points such as the ISBN
RMS Queen Mary
I saw that you undid all my recent revisions to the RMS Queen Mary page. Is there any reason for this? I was correcting grammatical mistakes and adding a few bits of useful info (the renaming of the classes on board in 1947).
I'm not sure why you changed "was" back to "were". The sentence is "Much of the machinery, including one of the two engine rooms, three of the four propellers, and all of the boilers, was removed..." The "was removed" refers to "the machinery", which is a singular collective noun. Unless this is one of those strange moments where British English is different from American English. In American English, we would say "The machinery was removed". In British English, would you really say "The machinery were removed"? I know you would say "Cunard are building a new ship", while we would say "Cunard is building a new ship." The subtleties of our two versions of the language can be very confusing, I agree.
Regardless of that fact, I'm not sure what objection you have to the other changes - the addition of useful commas to divide up distinct sections of sentences, etc.
Happy New Year!
Revert of units used in SS France article?
Hey, I saw you reverted my change of units back to kg-f/cm2 from bar.
Might I ask why? kg-f/cm2 squared is a bit of an historical unit, no longer in popular use. Rmvandijk (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Was a rollback error, was reverted within 1 minute. -- 16:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry, my browser didn't refresh, apparently I have crappy internet Rmvandijk (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I added it to Ikeston because the street address said "Ikeston" in it; even though Morely is not in Ikeston, people may mistakenly think it is in Ikeston. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)