User talk:Saberwyn

Archive

• /archive one - July 2005 to January 2006
• /archive two - January 2006 to June 2006
• /archive three - June 2006 to May 2007
• /archive four - May 2007 to July 2008
• /archive five - August 2008 to June 2009

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) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

HMAS Sydney

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

SoWhy 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

CfD nomination of Category:Zoids video games

I have nominated Category:Zoids video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Zoids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. G.A.S^talk 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Zoids Anime

I have nominated Category:Zoids Anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Zoids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. G.A.S^talk 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

You might also like to look at this:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/p=3054281.html

Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) might be an authorative source but you might consider that they could also be wrong. Of the 32 ships (check your numbers again), 11 were never commissioned in the RN (because of a shortage of sailors) - about 40 Naval compared to about 20 Army personnel per ship - but were operated by the RASC (and subsequently the RCT). The exception is HMS Rampart which became HAMV Akyab - complete with altered bow doors.

Your comment:

Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) mentions two "L4063"s, one unnamed and one named Jawada

See comment above but Landing Craft numbers were always allocated meticulously.

With regards to:

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!

This was a reference to HMAV Ardennes and not to “the original L4073” – apologies!

The references to the later HMAV Ardennes (LCL) L4003 and HMAV Arakan (LCL) L4001 are pertinent - HMAV Agheila (LCT) L4002 was still around at the time.

I have no knowledge of the naming conventions of the RN ships but the Army ships were all named after amphibious landings (successful and unsuccessful). These were not named or renamed after foreign cities starting with "A"!!!

Once again I have not interfered with your revision as I am now sick of "editorial wars". I will just leave it up to you.

I am still sorting the boxes to find the photos – I will get back to you.

Happy Christmas!

Medcroft (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Further information regarding Reference 3:

RCL Agheila and RCL Antwerp were Ramped Craft Logistic and not LCTs or LCLs. They both carried historical names of previous LCTs but HMAV Agheila [LCT (8)] and HMAV Antwerp [LCT (8)] were both decommissioned in the 1970s.

As regards the naming conventions - they were all named after amphibious landings beginning with "A". With a little research this would be obvious to you.

Now regarding the "extra" LCT:

I have found a reference to 13 Mk 8 LCTs being sent to Singapore. Now each RASC Maritime LCT Company was supposed to comprise 12 Mk 8 LCTs (one in the UK and one in the Far East). I have a vague memory of one being lost which might have been the duplicate L4063 (and not L4063/HMS Jawada). This might explain why L3047 (originally HMS Rampart) was transferred to the Army and then became HMAV Akyab as a replacement.

More to follow. Once again I will leave the editing to you. Still cannot find my photos - hope not lost during a previous house move!

Medcroft (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

Txs

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

HMS Howe

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Thanks, I don't think this is as urgent as Deliziosa was since we were getting hits on a redlink then. The two articles assert enough notability that they shouldn't be bait for speedy deletion and I think I've cleaned them up enough to stay in the article namespace temporarily, but they could use further expansion and standardization which I will leave for you to do. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this guy has now decided to create articles on every single cruise ship currently on order even if they haven't even begun construction. If you would like to help me out, I'm now officially over my head with Celebrity Silhouette, MV Seabourn Quest, and MSC Magnifica on top of the original two Costa ships I first pinged you about two days ago. Plus I'm betting that if my warning to him did not take heed then these links will be blue tomorrow: MSC Meraviglia, MSC Favolosa, and AIDAsol. I so want to just go rogue and block this guy. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fascinosa and Favolosa are done, or as done as I can get them, as almost every single source out there is a paraphrasing of one of two Costa press releases. I'll try another one or two tonight or tomorrow morning: work has a funny habit of interrupting my editing schedule. -- saberwyn 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand how that goes. I've gone from thinking I had four days to be able to put together an article I've been planning for two years to having two assignments due in 36 hours. Upon looking it seems as though someone else has jumped on Magnifica, so only a cursory glance should be sufficient, if you only have a short time available at some point. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

All three are done. Magnifica looks okay, but Silhouette is fairly shaky, and Quest even more so (every source I can find is a paraphrasing of a single press release. There's not going to be much more content on these two until (at the earliest) they start laying hull, and if either one is prodded or taken to AfD because of the lack of reliable, independant sources, I'm not gonna contest. -- saberwyn 09:25, 23 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--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really want me in on this, it'll have to wait a little while. My wiki-time is going to be fairly limited for the next week or two because of real life commitments, and I'm going to need a few weeks anyway to track down sources and refamiliarise myself with the ship. -- saberwyn 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

And knowing me, I'm going to want to expand and overhaul the entire "Operational history" section before it goes up for GA. -- saberwyn 09:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I put my hand up to work on this a few months ago, but have done next to nothing on it so far... Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not a "current state of the article thing", but more of a "potential state of the article" thing. You of all people should know how dangerous it is to dangle a potential top-notch (GA/FA) article in front of me :P

On a serious note, do you know of any potential sources? -- saberwyn 09:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness yes - one of the reasons I haven't gone ahead with this is that there are too many sources. For instance, the political decisions which led to her purchase and decommissioning are covered in Tom Frame and David Stevens' histories of the RAN, Stevens' has a chapter on what the ship meant to Australians in Navy and the nation: the influence of the navy on modern Australia, the naval volume of the official history of WW1 has plenty of coverage of her and there's material on the ship in all the usual sources (Gillett, Jane's Conway's, etc), and that's just a starting point! I don't think it will be possible to go into the level of detail as in the articles on the carriers, so it should be reasonably manageable. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul it as much as you like, whenever you like; I'm in no hurry. And if you can find more on her service while attached to the Grand Fleet that would be great. Because I haven't been able to find out much other than her collisions, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Costa Deliziosa

On February 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Costa Deliziosa, 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk VIII LCT

Cheers for looking in Saberwyn, I was actually going to contact Milhist once I got home to get some outside opinion. Apologies also if I came across as shouty or threatening (I'm actually trying to offer the user support). Just to clarify, I only added the info in order to add a sourced statement and support the current claim, and in doing so changed "amphibious" to "WWII", to reflect the source. Not such a major change really, but I can't knowingly allow the source to be manipulated. But debates like this aren't what what I joined Wikipedia for so I won't be commenting on Medcroft's talkpage any more. Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings. My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively. I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about. I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval. Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it. My public e-mail address is Med.croft@virgin.net.Medcroft (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RAN honours

I suspect that this posting on the Navy's website will be of great interest, particularly the list of all honours awarded to RAN ships. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've know about the list for a while, but this is the first document that explains what that list entails. Thanks for the heads up...now I just need to find the time to update everything. -- saberwyn 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 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) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia I‎

Sorry about causing the edit conflict. Is it OK if I help out with this? It's been on my to-do list for a while, and I've currently got the relevant WW1 official history volume and another book with a chapter on the ship out from the library. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It happens. Go for gold...the more you help, the better it will end up. I'll be offline for the rest of the day if you want to take some time and play with it. -- saberwyn 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Vengeance (R71)

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Vengeance (R71), 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, quick check ) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref formatting on Australia

Apparently Reflinks fills everything in, so I've only chucked in raw links at the moment. Hopefully if works YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I'll stay clear for a while anyway...my slow, steady, save-rarely style of editing is having trouble keeping up with the rate of change the article's currently experiencing.

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback!

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've also granted you autoreviewer. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although I see few (more likely zero) occasions where I'm actually going to use these tools. -- saberwyn 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I, but just in case... :-) Also, what do you think of {{Navbox shipwrecks of New South Wales}}? It's huge ! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, it scares me. If anyone else adds it to an article, all well and good, but I'm not touching it. -- saberwyn 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I'm not touching it either; code is not my forte. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMAS Australia (1911)

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Australia (1911), 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, quick check ) 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 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) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk VIII

Happy to look into it, don't worry. Ardennes can indeed be found on p162, but the details were pretty wrong, so I've corrected that. Also gone with what the book tells me for 3 other vessels (I'm not sure about this RASC/RCT history). Antwerp certainly doesn't appear on 162, so I've changed that one a fair bit. Several accounts and anonymous IPs with similar editing habits seem to be active on the article now; User:Audemer is now also on the Wikicommons page. I can guess who it might be.... Ranger Steve (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoever they are, I'll give them a fair go. However, misrepresenting sources is a nice way to kick off. -- saberwyn 09:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SMS Helgoland

Well, I prefer that less than a link too. I'm asking your opinion on whether it would make sense to link the SMS ... most English-speakers aren't going to know what that means, right? They may not even guess. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Although they won't know what it means, I think that the majority of readers will get the idea that SMS is some kind of idenfiying prefix (like HMS or USS) without the article having to state it outright, particularly when they see in the body of the article that all contemporaty German warships also carry the same three letters. For those few who have a burning desire to know exactly what SMS stands for, they can easily search for it. -- saberwyn 00:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I apologise for the confusion about the editing of the talk page of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank. We clearly were trying to do the same thing at the same time!

Audemer (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's alright. It happens sometimes. -- saberwyn 03:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia ACR

Since you have the most edits to HMAS Australia (1911), do you believe that you deserve to be a co-nom and gain an ACM credit along with Sturmvogel on the ACR? -MBK₀₀₄ 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, but I think Sturmvogel should make the call on that. -- saberwyn 08:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Left him a {{talkback}} pointing here. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Credit for an ACM is definitely in order! I specified as much in my original nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, FWIW, both editors did substantial and outstanding work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Collins class submarine, HMAS Sydney (R17) and HMAS Australia (1911), promoted to A-Class between November 2009 and April 2010, I hereby award you the A-class Medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)