User talk:Saberwyn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:52, 14 February 2010

Thanks for your reviews

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Roger Davies ^talk 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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) 23:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of MTV’s The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors that may live in or near those cities. Do you live in or near Darling Harbour, and if so, would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Sydney residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's great. The address of the building is 19 Darling Walk, Darling Harbour Sydney NSW 2000. You can find more info about the place, including pics of what it looks like (copyright protected, unfortunately) here. Thanks! Nightscream 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shit. Oh well. I'll just ask RealWorldHouses.com if I can use theirs. Since I've given permission for them to use my Brooklyn pics, I'm hoping they'll say yes. I'll also pass along the info about that house that you gave me. Thanks for all your help. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saberwyn. You have new messages at Socrates2008's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of HMAS Sydney (R17)

Hello! Your submission of HMAS Sydney (R17) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMAS Sydney

Wow! That's a fantastic re-write of this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, I assume this will be coming to either the MILHIST ACR or FAC soon? -MBK₀₀₄ 11:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. The article still needs a little more work, but will definitely begin going through the motions before the end of the year. -- saberwyn 11:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi Saberwyn, I just noticed that you don't have rollback rights enabled on your account. Are you interested in having this enabled? - if so I (or any other admin) can easily set it up. Information on what rollback lets you do is at Wikipedia:Rollback feature (in short, it's a simpler version of the 'undo' function, which allows multiple edits by a single editor to be easily reverted). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. Let me know if you'd ever like it enabled. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HMAS Sydney (R17)

On August 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Sydney (R17), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

So Why 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, Saber. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up the infobox for HMAS Doomba - I've been wondering how to do what you did for a while, and now I have a good template to use! I found out today that this ship came to my grandfather's aid when the ship he was working on (SS Allara) was torpedoed off Newcastle in July 1942, so it seemed a good topic for an article. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Zoids video games

CfD nomination of Category:Zoids Anime

Photos

Hi Saberwyn, the photos at http://www.kockums.se/news/photostock/photo.html might be of interest/use for the Collins class article. The licensing conditions look acceptable for Wikicommons ("The pictures below are made for printing and they are of course free to use." ... ". I've just uploaded one photo at File:HMAS Collins Kockums photo.jpg Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of HMAS Melbourne up for deletion

Hi Saberwyn, you might be interested in the discussion here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll stay out, because I'm not sure which side to take. While the event is significant and should be illustrated, (1) the current interpretation of the Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images guideline doesn't look like allowing the image, as a free use/public domain image of the damage could feasibly be out there, and the "historic event" clause leans more towards the image being of the event (i.e. the collision or immediate aftermath) or the image itself being the subject of commentary, (2) in the grand scheme of things, it isn't unreasonably long before images related to the collision do hit the public domain, and (3) its not that good an image...there are better ones out there illustrating the damage more clearly. -- saberwyn 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books on HMAS Melbourne

Hi Saberwyn, in the discussion about the Aus Vietnam carrier category you said you need to track down two books. What are you looking for, I might have the necessary info in one of the books I have here about Melbourne and the Fleet Air Arm. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking for content to clarify the carrier's relationship to the Vietnam War...i.e. that there wasn't one, as 'Melbourne never entered Vietnamese waters and only escorted Sydney for brief periods. I'm fairly certain that Nott & Payne's The Vung Tau Ferry: HMAS Sydney and Escort Ships discusses this, and the info may also be in Grey's Up Top: the Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian conflicts, 1955-1972. -- saberwyn 05:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Australian Navy ships

Thanks for your tidying up of the page, and I agree with you about removing the Age column. I do not know what possessed me to add it in. :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Kelvin

Hi. You left a question on my talk page regarding some of the photos I've put up. My great uncle was on HMS Kelvin. I know the ship got around a bit (he had campaign medals for practically every oceanic theatre), but I don't know how he got some of the photos he had. The Bartolomeo Colleoni pics are a case in point. Kelvin was in the Med in 1941,[1] but I think she arrived in October and the Battle of Cape Spada was in July. The two photos you've spotted were in his collection - which included pictures of him at his post on the ship - and they had his handwriting on the back indicating which ship was in the frame. I assume that sailors traded photographs and these two "action" shots were exchanged with a sailor from another ship which was there at the time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could only speculate that since the target is pretty close it is more likely the guns belong to a destroyer, perhaps on a torpedo run (Ilex or Hyperion?). I doubt the photographer could be standing so close to the main guns (certainly of Sydney) if they were being fired at the time. Also, assuming the other photograph was taken by the same person, the shot of the ship exploding would almost certainly have come at the end of the action - Sydney had disengaged by this point so it points to a destroyer. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of yours used without attribution

Hi Saberwyn, I just saw that the September 2009 edition of Australian Defence Magazine has used what appears to be File:723squadron Augusta recovery.jpg without attributing it to either you or Wikicommons. It's on page 8 of the magazine if you can find a copy. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to check that out. By my layman's understanding of the licenses, they should have attributed it: is there any sort of proceedure for a situation like this? -- saberwyn 07:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the rules either, but I think that they at least needed to attribute you and may not have been able to include it in a commercial publication. The relevant guidance seems to be Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. I can't see what the enforcement mechanism is, though; you could try the Commons village pump. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update: I haven't been able to track down a copy of the magazine myself, nd I don't want to raise a stink without that. I'll keep looking, even though its probably out of newsagents by now. -- saberwyn 07:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Ikip (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran

Thanks for the heads up and your good work on the article. I am a bit busy for the next few days, and will have a proper look as soon as I can. Grant | Talk 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some difficulty with your amendments to the Article "Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank"

You state that 33 Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank were operated by the Royal Navy or the British Army (the Royal Army Service Corps and latterly the Royal Corps of Transport). However you list 34 - perhaps there is a double entry for L3047? I would suggest that this is because L3047 was originally HMS Rampart and then became HMAV Akyab. The other eleven Army LCTs never saw service with the Royal Navy. There is also a double listing for L4063 - HMS Jawada. This then reduces the list to 32, which is my original total.

With specific reference to individual craft:

L4002 HMAV Agheila - "This was probably the last Mark 8 LCT to be decommissioned from the Army Fleet." This is because I left 20 Maritime Regiment Royal Corps of Transport briefly before said decommissioning.

L4037 HMS Rampart/HMAV Akyab - This vessel did also have enlarged bow doors - I have a photograph somewhere and will try to find it.

L4061 HMAV Audemer - "This ship's bridge and superstructure were modified sometime in the 1960s in order to be the flagship of 20 Maritime Regiment Royal Corps of Transport" - This is true but unfortunately I do not have photographic evidence as I lost the camera over the side one wild and windy night. I was the 1st Lieutenant at the time!

L4062 HMAV Aachen - "Fitted with twin funnels in 1962" - I cannot vouch for this but I will do some more research!

L4073 HMAV Ardennes - "The new HMAV Ardennes (LCL) commissioned c.1977 was given Pennant Number L4001" - This is pertinent information.

"The original L4073 was sailed to Singapore in 1960 and delivered to the Malaysian Forces." I will research further and get back to you.

"The story of the rescue of L4073 off St Kilda is presumed to be the inspiration for the Hammond Innes novel "Atlantic Fury"." I admit that this might be a bit of Army Maritime folk-law but I will do my best to prove it. The rescue of L4073 is well documented!

L4164 HMAV Arakan - The new HMAV Arakan (LCL) commissioned c.1978 was given Pennant Number L4003 - again this is pertinent information.

I have not interfered with your revision as I am now sick of "editorial wars". I will just leave it up to you. When I started this minor subject little did I think that it would cause so much controversy!

Perhaps this is why contributors and editors are leaving Wikipedia in their droves!

I do have various images of MK 8 LCTs and would be willing to forward them to you in order that you might properly display them.

Regards

Medcroft (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at your talk page. -- saberwyn 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry I have been away (in NZ!) and had other matters on my mind.

It does amuse me that you were born about 10 years after these craft went out of service.

This might be a useful reference for you:

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/StKildaMilitaryInstallations#fn1_3

Luna Park

Yes, that part if the edit summary was from a previous edit. Sorry for any confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Txs

Hi Saberwyn, thanks for doing the complicated stuff on Notational bias! Joepnl (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. -- saberwyn 03:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting skeet

Thanks for the heads up on this. I should confess, however, I wasn't expecting one; I'm often (perhaps too often ;p) a driveby editor, & unless the subject interests me, I don't watch the page. (In this case, it doesn't grab me enough. :( ) If you do want continued input, I'm happy to offer, but it'll probably take you prodding me over it. ;D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

Hello saberwyn - I must admit to being a bit irritated by people fiddling with the article - particularly as I actually served on four of them. Thank you however for your contributions.

Regarding the pennant numbers - I do think that they are important - names can confuse. For example HMS Rampart/HMAV Akyab (L4037) and HMS Jawada/unamed (L4063). I am still trying to get to the bottom of the L4063 issue.

As regards the Polaris missile: The US supplied all Polaris missiles for UK Ballistic Missile Submarines and UK based US boats (or "Boomers" as they called them) via the mothership (the name of which I cannot remember) based in Holy Loch. The RN depot for nuclear missiles was (and still is) RNAD Coulport about 25 miles north west of Glasgow and part of HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane. As there were generally one or two Mk 8 LCTs (more in olden days) based in Faslane they were the obvious vessel of choice for transferring the missiles. Rhu Hard was an ex-RNAS seaplane base.

The LCTs were also a key factor in submarine rescue operations/exercises (also so called "sub-sunk"). As far as I am aware their services were never called upon in a real rescue.

I have a raft of older photographs which I am currently cataloguing and will post shortly.

Medcroft Medcroft (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFA time

I just noticed that one of "your" FAs has a relevant date coming up that may be appropriate for it to be "Today's Featured Article". HMAS Melbourne (R21) could appear on 10 February in commemoration of the Melbourne–Voyager collision. At WP:TFA/R where you would request it, the article would be a two-pointer (date relevance and age of article (promoted +1 year ago)), which normally would be extremely hit-or-miss on being replaced or not, but since there is currently only two requests on the page, I believe you have a better chance of it sticking if you act quickly. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a clue how to format a nomination, but I'll give it a go. -- saberwyn 08:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problems, you could either ask for help on the talk page there or ping The_ed17 (talk · contribs) for help (I recently reminded him of an opportunity exactly like this). I am now off to bed (3 AM). -MBK₀₀₄ 09:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks good, now we wait. In the meantime I do have a suggestion for if the article does get to the main page. Melbourne–Voyager collision and Melbourne–Evans collision could both use infoboxes. The one I suggest is in use at USS Missouri grounding incident and USS Iowa turret explosion. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With at least five articles (your two, my two, and Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision), would it be worth doing it up as an actual template? -- saberwyn 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually Missouri is TomStar81's baby and Iowa is Cla68's. Here are a few more, and an alternate infobox, which is MILHIST standard instead of the custom one: Submarine incident off Kildin island and HMS Vanguard and Triomphant submarine collision (which needs an infobox as well). As to a dedicated template, that might be something we could discuss at either WT:SHIPS or WT:MARITIME with a note at the other to notify the other of the discussion. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By 'yours', I meant the two you mentioned. My two collision articles need some heavy polishing, after I do that I'll try to knock something together in userspace: see how strong my template-fu is. -- saberwyn 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood what you meant, but I still give credit when it is due for those articles. As to the template help, I know a person who can help out if needed. GW Simulations (talk · contribs) is a genius with templates and is responsible for the formatting of all Timeline of spaceflight articles (look at the infobox and launch list templates), the best developed being 2008 in spaceflight. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Redhornmodel.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Redhornmodel.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Voyager-Melbourne collision

I understand your concerns, but without the "Subsequent Investigations" section I fear the article does not address the actual collision cause, except in terms of blame. The cause remains controversial, which is of interest, as does the performance of Royal Commissions in such investigations, including the lack of attention to lessons learned. My suggestion would be to re-title the section if there is ambiguity and address specific citation issues so that the section is improved as required.

There may be a problem with sourcing the Frame quotes because there were hard and soft backs and, I believe, alterations between editions. The Ferry article was published in the Journal of the ANI in Summer 2004. The web update, which sources subsequent support for the analysis of the accident's cause, is unpublished.

Different topic. The article reads: "At 8:55 pm, with Voyager still turning to port, Melbourne’s navigator ordered the carrier's engines to half astern speed, with Robertson ordering an increase to full astern a few seconds later.[4] At the same time, Stevens, having just arrived on Voyager’s bridge, ....." I believe this last to be misleading since it suggests that Stevens had no prior knowledge of, nor participation in, the lead up. The chart table, where he had been immediately before, was integral with the bridge and he had been on the bridge during the manoeuvre before going to the chart table to read a document. I believe the Frame book "Where Fate Calls..." makes this clear and describes a note by the Chief of Naval Staff to the effect that he found Stevens' absence from the bridge during the manoeuvre puzzling. Some extracts I have from the first and second Royal Commissions also discuss this. The first does this at page 11, the second at p185. But should you have the Frame books and be able to check the citation and particularly its context this would save some time (and effort!) since no longer do I have access to it.

I suggest this phrase be deleted. Barbigal (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the phrase from the article.

Regarding the "Subsequent investigations": Where Fate Calls is sitting on my desk at home, I've just downloaded Ferry's published article, and I have an article by Chris Oxenbould, which also analyses the collision. I will go through these sources tonight, verify and/or fix the section, and reintegrate it back into the article. -- saberwyn 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Analysis does contribute a deal to the article. One point. At its ultimate paragraph, "Although discounted during the Royal Commissions......." My reading of the Reports (and some of the evidence) does not support this, though I recall Frame asserted to this effect but without attribution. What in fact was discussed during the first Royal Commission was what Captain Robertson described as a double fishtail, a different manoeuvre. The context (in the first Commission's report) clarifies some nomenclature confusion between the two. The second RC did not reopen the issue. I would recommend deletion of this phrase unless there is primary evidence for it.Barbigal (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once more Saberwyn. I seem to have used the wrong page for this: noted for any future forays. Incidentally, the Ferry web article is an improvement on the published version and has citations.Barbigal (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant pronounciation in the RAN

Noticed you reverted the incorrect changet to "Leftenant" in the RAN article back to Lieutenant with the comment if I read it correctly that Lietenant is pronounced "Leftenant". This is not the case in the RAN. In the Navy it is pronounced "l'tenant", the "Lieu" is a very short "le" with almost no vowel sound at all. I vividly remember having this drummed into me as a midshipman at HMAS Cerberus in 1977. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn me and my civilian-ness :P I know the Americans use the heavy "lieu" (hence "looie" as a nickname) and that some American naval personnel I met while in the States once complained about 'those British nations' not pronouncing it how it was spelled. Where I picked up the "lef" pronounciation, I don't know...I must have taken one and one, then added it up to three. Thanks for correcting me. -- saberwyn 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Lef" pronounciation is used, just not in the Navy, for example in the Army, Lieutenant General is pronounced, IIRC, using the "Lef" and the Air Force often use the "Lef" pronounciation for Flight Lieutenant. Remember there are three ways to do everything: the right way, the wrong way and the way the Navy does it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True that *chuckles*. -- saberwyn 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Howe

Many thanks for your time and interest on this. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne

Thank you so much. Keep up the good naval history work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno2007 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Deliziosa

I've made a suggestion about your hook at T:TDYK that you might want to consider. Nyttend (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you did such a great job with Deliziosa, would you mind tackling Costa Favolosa and Costa Fascinosa, both of which were just created today? The creator is notorious for inadequate articles and is responsible for why Deliziosa was salted until she entered service. -MBK₀₀₄ 09:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go, but it won't be for a few days. -- saberwyn 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMAS Australia (1911)

I've added the technical stuff and am thinking about putting it up for GA with you as a co-nom since you did the basic work, but thought that you might want to give it a read through for style, consistency, etc. And if you're aware of anything that describes her activities post-Jutland that would be great, because the official history doesn't have anything of significance--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 308: / Line 308: @@
 :Also, since you did such a great job with ''Deliziosa'', would you mind tackling ''[[Costa Favolosa]]'' and ''[[Costa Fascinosa]]'', both of which were just created today? The creator is notorious for inadequate articles and is responsible for why ''Deliziosa'' was salted until she entered service. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 09:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 ::I'll give it a go, but it won't be for a few days. -- [[User:Saberwyn|saberwyn]] 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
+== HMAS Australia (1911) ==
+I've added the technical stuff and am thinking about putting it up for GA with you as a co-nom since you did the basic work, but thought that you might want to give it a read through for style, consistency, etc. And if you're aware of anything that describes her activities post-Jutland that would be great, because the official history doesn't have anything of significance--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)