Jump to content

User talk:Saberwyn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Melbourne-Voyager: added that info is readily available in links
Line 372: Line 372:
</div>
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0666 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0666 -->

== Chevron with Oak Leaves ==

{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WikiChevronsOakLeaves.png|80px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |&ensp;'''The ''[[WP:MILHIST#AWARDS|WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves]]&ensp;'''''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank, and Saberwyn are hereby awarded this Chevron with Oak Leaves award for the roles that each played in assisting with the creation of the 63-article Featured Topic [[Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of the World/archive1|Battlecruisers of the World]]. Since each of you have an equal claim to an award for the years long effort that they put into the total project by working on their corner of it and each of you has made contributions of truly incredible quality or importance in the area of military history, culminating in the completing the single largest FT to date on Wikipedia and passing a milestone by bringing an entire classification of ships - battlecruisers in this case - up to GA-Class, A-Class, or FA-Class. As ''Majestic Titan'' editors, you are collectively being recognized for this outstanding accomplishment with this shared WikiChevron with Oak Leaves Award, the first of its kind to be award to a group of editors. Congratulations to each of you for your outstanding achievements, and keep up the good work! For the coordinators, [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 07:12, 2 December 2013

Archive

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fairfield, Stockton, Lagan and MacLellan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 501st Legion (Star Wars) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 501st Legion (Star Wars) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/501st Legion (Star Wars) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GrapedApe (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question, you have removed some of my good faith edits, mainly links I have added to other articles. An example would beHMAS Adelaide (1918), my standard on adding links is my young son, he often gets frustrated when reading an article and has interest in another subject on the current page he is reading and has to open a new page on his browser and type in the word. An example here would be midget submarine. I base adding links to something I think a younger person would be interested in reading as a follow up to the subject he or she is currently ready, and to give the reader quicker and easier access I added the link to midget submarine which you later removed. My question is if the link does not hurt the current page why remove it? I can see not adding links to subjects such as ice, water, air or a basic subject but my link to midget submarine to me seemed a positive addition to the page. Is there a guide line for what subjects we should and should not link?

Thank you for your help in this matter. --duanedonecker 7:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The main guideline for linking to other articles is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, with the section on Overlinking and underlinking being the most relevant. This recommends (among other things) that links should be "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". It also advises against linking "names of major geographic features and locations", which I personally define as nations, states, and major cities, particulatly if there is an adjacent or near-adjacent link to a more specific location.
Above and beyond this, one of my personal considerations is to avoid misleading readers by connectiong two or more links in a single "block of blue" where possible. To quote the alt text from this XKCD comic "I hate when I read something like '... tension among the BASE jumpers nearly led to wingsuit combat ...', and I get excited because 'wingsuit combat' is underlined, only to find that it's just separate links to the 'wingsuit'; and 'combat' articles." Having [[midget submarine]] [[attack on Sydney Harbour]] together runs the risk of people looking for either target ending up in the wrong article, and in this context, the attack link is more relevant to the article than the sub link.
Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you so much for your help!! --duanedonecker 8;05, 18 January 2013 (UTC0 —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HDML's

Hi Saberwyn, I was wondering what your opinion was on the HDML's and whether those that were reclassified as SBD's should be named as such. Example: HMDL 1321 and 1324 were both reclassifed as SBD's during their post war service. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specific thoughts on the matter, beyond the usual "most common name" argument...are they more famous andor better known for their wartime or post-wartime service? -- saberwyn 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These two are better known as HDML's due to their war careers. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wray

Hi, I was hoping you'd revisit the Peter Wray article and let me know what you think please. Hexrei2 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking of me... I've never visited the article in the first place. -- saberwyn 23:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RAN ship class hyphenation

Hi, given that you're one of our experts on the RAN, could you please weigh in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 36#Hyphenating Royal Australian Navy classes. Please do disagree with me if I'm wrong! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm choosing not to comment because I really don't have an opinion on this one, although I suspect there's not enough consistency to justify an exception to the rule here. Most of my books are in storage at the moment (just moved, haven't had time to get new bookcases), so I can't do a survey to see what the sources favour. -- saberwyn 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for that. As I'm a one man band here, I suspect that I'm not in the right ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck

Hi Saberwyn, it's The Dart here. I have contributed to several articles on Naval history since you welcomed me to Wiki editing, but I have recently been having problems with the main editorial consortium (monopoly) on 'The Bismarck' & related "Last battle of the battleship Bismarck' articles. No matter how many citations I provide for my additional evidence, the following editors continually delete my contribution. Parsecboy & Wdford. Even though I quote highly respected experts such as Antony Preston, David L. Mearns, Capt. Donald McIntyre, Rear Admiral G.G.O. Gatacre RAN, Iain Ballantyne and others, using the proper Wiki protocols and clear concise English, they continually throw out my work claiming it's rubbish. I believe that as these two articles stand they exhibit a very strong German bias and are not NPOV, which is why I add the RN point of view which is fully supported by my references. Just wondering if you have ever encountered these two bigoted bullies as editors. Parsecboy (3.262 Lightyearsboy I call him) claims to be an Administrator and threatens to block me if I don't tow his line. What can I do about this?The Dart (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) As an example of some of my work on other sites, you might check out Nelson class battleships or HMS Rodney (29) to see what I am capable of. I have had no problems with disputation there. Indeed, I have had friendly discussions with other editors who agree or don't object to my work.The Dart (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been mentioned specifically, allow me to clarify what The Dart claims. He violated BLP by making disparaging remarks here; I advised him to remove them. When he rejected that advice, I informed him that BLP is non-negotiable and that the alternative would be blocking his account. He then removed the problematic line. We are now hunky-dory, at least on that count.
As for treating his edits as rubbish, as far as I can tell, he only made two edits to the Bismarck article, one that damaged formatting, and a second that was problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which because it confuses verification of the hit (which it is not) and verification of the claim (which it is, and superfluous to what is already in the article), and it is a primary source, which cannot be used for such things. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saberwyn, I have actually tried to make other edits but they have instantly disappeared or not been saved due to edit conflict. As an Administrator does Parsecboy have priority over saved edits even before they're saved? Any way I have decided to abandon all hope of countering the blatant German bias in these articles. They claim that the British side of the story is 'Propaganda' but the German survivors story is 'Fact' and disregard Mearns and Ballantyne as not reliable but allow their German references, Garzke, Zetterling & Mullenheim to dominate the historical record on the topic. Plainly I am wasting my time with these two and have become so frustrated by this experience that I probably wont bother to even consult Wikipedia again on Naval topics. I will be posting my annoyance on the Wikipedia Review website, where I notice Parsecboy's name has already appeared several times before as a reason for people abandoning Wikipedia. Thank you and goodbye, I am out of here. I have got more important things in my life to worry about.The Dart (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm... not sure what I'm expected to do here. -- saberwyn 13:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Nothing! Thanks for your perseverance, you can't fight ignorance I guess. These people are living in denial and I don't mean Egypt.The Dart (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Saberwyn. You have new messages at Jackson Peebles's talk page.
Message added 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you! Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minas Gerais aircraft carrier

I understand you are a major contributor to this article so, since I am planning to nominate it towards GA status, I was wondering if you were interested in enacting a cooperative nomination of this article. Please respond on my talk page. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to nominate the article, go for it. I'll help out where I can, but be aware that I'm not particularly invested in the topic: my main interest is in the British and Australian era of her career. -- saberwyn 11:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HMAS Australia

remove external link to image. Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of having an external link on a disambiguation page that goes to a single image of one of the disambiguation items (without specifying which)? At the time I also thought that we already had the image on Commons, but its from a different perspective. -- saberwyn 12:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was a dab page, I would agree with you. But it isn't a dab page - is it? (i.e. I may be wrong, but if so, I'd like to know how/why I'm wrong.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A ship index page is for most intents and purposes a disambiguation page, just allowed to break a few of the rules (specificity, the "one link per entry" rule and the inclusion of content common to all/majority of entries, like battle honours). All other dab page rules and conventions apply. -- saberwyn 21:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Saberwyn! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMAS Choules (L100) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 45151172.jpg|thumb|left|upright|Humanitarian supplies being unloaded from ''Largs Bay'' at Haiti]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE2

I've filled out the description of the boat and have been poking around trying to find out what kind of work is being done to preserve her in preparation for a GA nomination. The AE2CF site doesn't describe much after 2010 other than the commemorative plaques and I'm more interested in legislative and physical measures for which info seems to be lacking. Do you know of anything?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not off the top of my head, but will see if I can come up with anything. -- saberwyn 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still need to add the results of the 2008 expedition in more detail, but there doesn't seem to be much out there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some bits and pieces and added them to the article, but I think I've exhausted all at-hand sources (although Beneath the Dardanelles: The Australian Submarine at Gallipoli looks pretty solid... I may need to track down a copy). -- saberwyn 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contact me off list about that. I might know a source. I've only skimmed it, but it didn't contradict any of your earlier work so I haven't gone through it in detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back through the article and made a few tweaks, see if they're agreeable. Read Beneath the Dardanelles, but it's really just matching accounts from Stoker and the Turkish destroyer captain about AE2's time in the Dardanelles and the Sea of Marmora. We could use that info to expand the account of AE2's activities then if you think that that's worth pursuing, although I think the article covers that well enough already. The other issue is about the commemorative plaques, we probably need to establish which ones have been installed and add those to the article, but the AE2 Commemorative Foundation hasn't said much in the last three years, so plans may have stalled. What do you think? I suppose we could contact the Foundation and ask ourselves, although that might be a bit hard to source as I'm not sure how to cite a personal email.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look over the next couple of days. As for getting an RS about status of the plaques, 'encourage' them to do a press release updating the status of the Foundation's various activites? -- saberwyn 07:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. Do you want to, or shall I?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy for you to take lead on this... I don't have as much free time as I'd like at the mo. -- saberwyn 08:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried to email the contact address from the foundation, but it was rejected as no such address. I guess I'll try one of the other addresses on the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's... promising :P -- saberwyn 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent back-and-forth at HMAS Otama

As one of the parties involved in the recent back-and-forth at the article HMAS Otama, I invite you to come to the article's talk page and discuss potential ways forward. -- saberwyn 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INS Sahyadri

Thanks for the nice images of INS Sahyadri. Would it be possible for you to get the close-ups of the VLS systems of the ship? It has an 8 cell system for BrahMos and supposedly also a Barak SAM system with probably 24 or 32 cell. Images of any of them would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 05:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few photos already loaded of the weapons. File:RAN-IFR 2013 D2 69.JPG has a closeup of the bow section, including an armature for a missile launcher (above and behind the turret), and what looks like a 16-cell VLS. Sorry its a little blurry... this was about the point that my primary camera started crapping out and I had to switch to backup. File:RAN-IFR 2013 D3 171.JPG has a sideview of the forward turret and the armature launcher, while File:RAN-IFR 2013 D5 16.JPG has a forward view. I can trawl through my other photos to see if I have anything better, but like I said, the first photo was when my camera was having problems, and the other two didn't put me in a situation with enough elevation to see the forward Very Loud Surprise. -- saberwyn 07:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it seems quite a good shot.....looks like a 16 or 24 cell VLS to me and considering it's size, it could be Barak CIWS. I'll try zooming the full res image and crop it..will let you know if it yields a good clarity one. Cheers and thanks a lot, ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 07:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't been able to find any better photos, sorry. However, was able to find some tech specs in a local naval magazine for Sahyardi, which describes the missile load including 8 Novator Alfa Klub-N in VLS silos, 4 octople Barak VLS anti-missile missiles (which would gel with the 16-cell VLS in my photo), and an Shtil launcher for 24 anti aircraft missile (the armature launcher) <ref>{{cite journal|date=October 2013 |title=Foreign Warships of IFR 2013 |journal=The Navy|publisher=[[Navy League of Australia]]|volume=75 |issue=4|pages=27 |issn=1322-6231}}</ref> A decent enough source until you find an edition of Jane's or something to use. -- saberwyn 03:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to SPS Cantabria (A15) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ' performed 63 replenishments, including 10,500 cubic metres of fuel, was involved in the first [[vertical replenishment of an [[Anzac-class frigate|''Anzac''-class frigate]] by an [[MRH-90]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne-Voyager

Hi. I wonder if the recent additions you made to the collision article might constitute rather too much detail? Sentences like, The Law Institute investigation, and subsequent investigations by receivers appointed in 2010 found multiple issues, including full legal fees being charged despite agreements for a discount on Voyager cases, double payment of disbursements (one payment to whoever provided the service, the other to Hollows Lawyers), doing work for multiple clients then charging each individual client the full cost, and "writing back in" costs previously written off bills seem to me a bit elaborate for an article that is really about the collision. The occasional reader who is looking for that kind of information has only to click on the links. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron with Oak Leaves

 The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves 
By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, Parsecboy, Cam, TheEd17, Dank, and Saberwyn are hereby awarded this Chevron with Oak Leaves award for the roles that each played in assisting with the creation of the 63-article Featured Topic Battlecruisers of the World. Since each of you have an equal claim to an award for the years long effort that they put into the total project by working on their corner of it and each of you has made contributions of truly incredible quality or importance in the area of military history, culminating in the completing the single largest FT to date on Wikipedia and passing a milestone by bringing an entire classification of ships - battlecruisers in this case - up to GA-Class, A-Class, or FA-Class. As Majestic Titan editors, you are collectively being recognized for this outstanding accomplishment with this shared WikiChevron with Oak Leaves Award, the first of its kind to be award to a group of editors. Congratulations to each of you for your outstanding achievements, and keep up the good work! For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saberwyn&oldid=584176211"