User talk:The Land

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:The Land/Archive/Archive02. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archive 1

Check out the battleship page now. I have it pretty-well polished up until the World War II section, and that should be taken care of soon. I'd like to add a little more detail to the "decline" section as needed. Carajou 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about the "cruiser" entry as well. Years ago I had read a lot about USS Constitution, and one of her acts was to conduct searches for British ships while under the command of William Bainbridge near the Brazilian coast. Accompanying her I believe was USS Essex, and Essex was ordered to keep a certain British ship bottled up in Bahia while Constitution went elsewhere. From what I read, the back-and-forth sailing done by Essex was called "cruising", which gave rise to "cruiser" as applied to a ship. But as I've said, it's been a long while (27 years) since I read it, so I could be wrong. Carajou 01:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

• 8The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

MFI-17 Mushshak

pl elobrate your rating.What should be added more and how.E.g source about its manfacture puictures in other counrries and what else?.User talk:Yousaf465 "Thanks for the assit" from f-22 raptor wingman.User talk:Yousaf465

Page stats

Hi The Land. On your user page you say that Battleship was being read by 164,000 people a day. Where do you get that information? Is it just from the list of most popular pages, or it possible to get the daily read rate for more modest pages? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK: K-1000 battleship

On 30 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article K-1000 battleship, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, HMS Incomparable, was selected for DYK!

On February 16, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Incomparable, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-dreadnought battleship

I noticed someone added an image to this article today, and when I visited to check it out, the article seemed buried in images. I hadn't looked at it in a long time, but I knew it couldn't have passed FA with so much text sandwiched between images, so I counted them - and found that it had 18 images at FA, and now has 22. Ugh! Can you take a look? Maralia (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

List of battleships of France

Please review List of battleships of France--Toddy1 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlecruiser rewrite

Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was getting a bit frustrated with the state of it, not least because I encounter SO MANY misconceptions about battlecruisers on interent messageboards, and my irritation with i twas holding up me working on the things I really care about, like dreadnought...  ;-) The Land (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Battlecruiser

Are you trying to bring it up to FA all on your own? =) the_ed17 06:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask if you need any help, btw, though I won't be back (in all likelihood) until Monday(?) the_ed17 06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So I lied; this will be the only edit I will have today (probably...I apoligize for being a wikiholic)!!!! But I will help with prose etc.--I know very little about battlecrusiers, so that is probably all that I can help with. Sorry! the_ed17 14:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Review request - List of Peruvian Navy ships

Please could you review List of Peruvian Navy ships and put suggestions for improvement & style changes in the talk page. The reason for requesting this is that I want to improve the page, for one thing taking the list back to the mid-19th century (the Peruvian navy was an important regional navy from the 1850s to 1881).

I have two reasons for wanting to attempt this. (a) it is a comparatively small task, so I have got time for it. (b) The recent mention of Loa and the Victoria on the Ironclad_warship, which are not mentioned in Conways, and which King's 1880 book said were armoured gun vessels.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jackie fisher

Hi, I noticed you taking an interest on the chat page for Jackie fisher, and wondered whether you know anything about him. (like, seriously, it struck me from your comments that you may). The article already has a difference of view over his successive commands in the 'captain' section. Massie/Dreadnought lists a third order of commands. He says fisher went back to sea december 1876 commanding Pallas, then moved to a cruiser, then to two battleships, one of which was bellerophan, then Inflexible in jan 1881. That he commanded five ships in six years starting 1876 before returning to 'excellent' in portsmouth after severe illness. We list six commands in that period. One is 'Duke of Wellington', which its own article says was flagship of the admiral at Portsmouth at the time the JF article lists it with fisher commanding. Massie has him commanding Inflexible from jan 1881, when the article places him on duke of wellington. From the description of 'pallas' she would seem always a design failure, and perhaps a good ship to give to a new commander for some practice. Any ideas? Sandpiper (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

well a study of the ships might reveal a sequence of captains, or where they were and what doing which may help confirm or eliminate some of the conflicting info. Dreadnought isn't really a bio of fisher, he's just one part. Havn't read any others specifically about him, but I am reasonably impressed by what is in dreadnought. He does emphasise people and their interactions, but I do notice sometimes wiki articles seem to me a bit short on character and background stuff about the people, whereas their bald doings are listed. In the case of the fisher article I found it quite long and informative, but actually having read much of what massie says, now feel it rather missed the point of explaining exactly what he did which was so impressive. I came at this from reading about churchill, and his bust up with fisher, thus wanting to know something of fishers side. So now I feel I shall have to track down castles of steel, to see what massie says about the two together. Sandpiper (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the command dates. When I get time I will try to check them off against massie and see if the two are consistent. On a slightly different tack, I gathered from your comments on 'fisher' talk that you have reservations about Massie. I just got hold of 'castles of steel' and was reading the sections about the dardanelles naval actions and jutland. Never been especially concerned about naval battles before 6 months ago.

Now, I gather from Massie there was considerable debate over the Jutland outcome. If I summarise Massie, I would say he said, the germans got in first claiming Jutland as a victory before Jellicoe came home or the admiralty knew what happened. As a result there was a public perception of a lost battle which has persistently lingered and been blamed on Jellicoe. My impression from Massie is that Beatty was responsible for a disproportionate number of the british losses, that he failed to follow Fisher's plan ie that battlecruisers were never supposed to engage within enemy range, stupidly allowed his fleet to be split, and failed to report what was happening (as he had been specifically ordered). Jellicoe was blamed for being overcautious, but again he exactly did follow Fishers plan, at all costs to maintain numerical supremacy of the british fleet and specifically the dreadnoughts, which he did as agreed with the admiralty. That leaves open the issue about whether it would have been better to have risked the fleet for the benefits of destroying the german one, or whether beatty was right to risk (and lose) his ships if that was necessary to draw out the germans. Anyhow, do you consider this is an accurate representation of current thinking?

re the Dardanelles, Massie struck me as somewhat more pro-churchill (though there is a good deal more background I have yet to read) than Carlyon writing in Gallipoli. Fisher was steadfastly against the Dardanelles campaign, but again as with Jutland, mostly because of issues of compromising the strength of the grand fleet. It struck me Massie came down on the side of Churchill being correct to press the naval campaign, which he was never permitted to do. He got the blame, but never got to apply his own strategy. Keys even attempted a last-minute resurrection of a naval attack, which he seems to have always and afterwards believed would work. Carlyon was quite dismissive of Keys, said he was the sort of person who should never be placed in overall command, though in reality but for a change of government, he would eventually have been first lord. The books didn't exactly say, but I begin to suspect Churchill did not even disagree with fisher about the need for troops. He just knew he wasn't going to get them. Anyhow, what are your reservations about Massie and therefore about his conclusions? Sandpiper (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Warrior

Did you have a ref to where massie discusses this? Sandpiper (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that. I will investigate more. But as a first response, I would draw your attention to Image:HMS Warrior Armour.png. which shows the bulkhead construction as a sandwich of steel with timber inside. The caption also claims a similar composite construction for all the armour. Sandpiper (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What I hoped to find was a detailed diagram of how the hull worked. Best I can find is that the central section of the ship was different to the stem and stern ends. The ends were simply a thin wrought iron skin. The centre was wrought iron, then teak planking 18 in thick, then 4.5 in of wrought iron plates. This extended through the ship as a bulkhead, so the core was a big armoured rectangular box with shaped ends tacked on. I noted a comment which I didn't understand when I read it, but which I think said one or other end had been removed when she was used as a barge, but they have now put it back on.

So it seems Massie was wrong about the oak, it was teak, 'but iron plates four and a half inches thick' certainly were 'bolted to her [wooden] side' . Now, my remaining puzzle is how the outer skin was formed: the outside is smooth without obvious bulges in the middle, so somehow the thin section has to flow into the thick part. It is certainly not clear cut that the hull is simply made of iron, because it isn't. Saying that the hull was wholly made of iron would seem to be misleading, though I would agree the way Massie has it, you would imagine the ship was entirely oak with armour tacked on the outside. I am assuming the ends are simply iron from what I have found, but I havn't proved it. I did see a note that some iron hulls were clad in wood because it was less prone to fouling. So, I would say while Massie has caused confusion, from our article on warrior I would have formed the mistaken impression that no timber was used in her hull, whereas it formed the greater part of its thickness. I start to wonder whether perhaps massie is simply a little mischievous. Sandpiper (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

here is a link to an old encyclopedia describing construction. Says the stern had 24 in of teak, though I wasn't quite clear if inside or out, and the bow 10 in of iron. Sandpiper (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that in fact you yourself uploaded the picture which I pointed out, and so presumably already knew much or all of the points I just made. Thus, it may be that your objection to massie's comment is not what appeared to me as the problem before starting to investigate. As I said, the wiki article would lead one to believe there was no iron in the hull of Warrior, whereas in fact it relied significantly upon timber. Yes, it seems to have been a next-generation ship but timber had not been dispensed with completely. What more exactly did you object to?

The hull of a ship consists of structural material of a ship (the various ribs, girders and beams which give it its shape - think of them as bones) and the 'skin' of the ship. You can see that Warrior certainly had these made of iron, in the fascinating article you posted. So she had an iron hull. The armour plate which lies outside of the hull did, indeed, include wood. (I assume the armour was tapered at either end to reduce drag).

Of course this is quite a technical point. However, Massie was either mistaken about Warrior's construction or didn't know the difference between hull and armour; either way he should have known what he was talking about. To add to the confusion, many early ironclads did have wooden hulls, and wood persisted in ironclad armour until the development of steel composites in the 1880s. But all this is by-the-by. Massie was wrong. Regards, The Land (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is becoming a technical point. However, the only line in massie which is wrong is the the 5 words, 'her hull was made of oak'. I was concerned about the description of her as an 'ironclad', but that seems to be correct, despite the suggestion of meaning iron over something else. I am not yet convinced by your argument that the hull was made entirely of iron. If you are dismissing the wood and armour plates as equivalent to tyres tied along the outside as bumpers, then I would agree. However, the armour was permanently fixed in place and seems likely to have contributed significantly to the shape, performance, certainly strength, and structural integrity of the ship. There seems to be a question mark over wrought iron alone as a hull material. Now, oak is emtirely wrong and the sentence ought to have said something like,'her hull was teak over a wrought iron frame and skin, with 4 in plates over the teak...', but there was an awful lot of teak. How does the strength of 18 in of teak compare to 1 in of slightly brittle iron? My own interpretation of the facts so far would be to disagree with any claim she was an all-iron hulled ship, because she wasn't. I think a certain amount of hype has crept into her description. There was more iron than the iron over tiber framed ships, but it had still not been eliminated from the design.

I can't tell from pictures if the citadel tapered at either end, but this would have complicated the design. I am still puzzled how the ends were smoothly fitted to the centre. The whole point of having armoured bulkheads through the ship must imply that the armour was continuous around the corners of the box, or it would be a very weak point. Also, as I said, whether the outer plates in fact formed a watertight skin in their own right. Sandpiper (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, the teak was there to stop shells, not water. Warrior's construction was basically similar to that of Great Eastern or the earlier iron frigates, with armour bolted on to the outside: and totally different to the construction of a wooden ship, even a wooden ironclad. Not one of the books I have read about 19th-century naval design agrees with your interpretation. The Land (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, surely the point of writing a new book about something which has been covered before is to provide new interpretations. Somewhere above I said I would like to see exactly how the hull and three main sections fitted together before forming a view. Also, are you quite sure the teak was not waterproof? I agree it is a reasonable assumption, but that may be all it is. It is clear Massie made a mistake about species, and seems likely he made a larger one. But I would still say he has managed in this muddle to make a point not apparent to me from eg the wiki article, or presumably in general perceptions of the ship, that there was still significant use of timber in its construction, whatever precisely its purpose.

On the broader point though, I don't accept that making a few mistakes here and there (or even a lot)invalidates any book. I don't believe in perfect accuracy. It is a question of extracting information from where you find it, with an open mind each time any contradiction arises. And again, if everyone wrote exactly the same things, what would be the point of new books? I noticed there are several articles without references which contain narrative very similar to Massie, yet with sufficient difference on points that I suspect they came from somewhere else. On the whole this gives me confidence in Massie rather than the reverse. Sandpiper (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this kind of error invalidated the thesis of a book. It does, however make it unreliable as a source of detailed reference information. And, if you recall, this debate started with a technical point about ship design. It might, of course, be that Massie is right on both dreadnought compartmentation and the hull of the Warrior. However I prefer to believe books by naval architects and professional historians. Regards, The Land (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Warrior. Whether the teak was waterproof is redundant, because the teak was sandwiched between the hull (iron) and the outer layer of armour (iron) as you can very clearly see in both the photo and the description in that link you supplies. The Land (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The old article about building warrior talked about the armour plates being 'dovetailed' together. I can only see how that would literally work if they are completely flat, or have a regular continuous curve. It might suggest the outer armour was itself firmly sealed and waterproof, which would make it even more an integral part of the hull. Unfortunately we don't really have enough exact detailed information about it to tell. Your picture of the bulkhead shows rather rotten wood, not surprising after this time, but the space is clearly sealed from the sea at the ends. A longer piece somewhere about the restoration of the ship might go into this: did they remove the armour to replace this rotten wood in the main hull (assuming it is in the same state), or is the armour sealed so they just left the wood to rot quietly, not being essential any more to resist artillery? Sandpiper (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, you are barking up the wrong tree. Every authority I have read gives the impression that a ship's armour is not really regarded as part of its hull, and that the teak used in constructing Warrior was part of the armour. If only detailed plans of the construction of Warrior will satisfy you on this point then I suggest you go and locate some. If you asked the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, the Royal Naval Museum, or the HMS Warrior Preservation Trust they might do. (Though the latter two do have websites, which also refer to her as being "iron-hulled"....) In the meantime there is little point continuing this discussion. The Land (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Adler von Lübeck

Hello. There is a Good Article on the Hanseatic Adler von Lübeck in the German WP I contributed to, which, I believe, warrants a translation into English (I have already done a bit). Do you know any contributors who were interested in undertaking such a translation? I am turning to you, because I saw last year your good work over at the article on ironclad warships. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Fairbanks in Dreadnought

Hi there. I vaguely recall that you included Fairbanks in the Dreadnought article in the origins of the all-big-gun ship. I've always been somewhat contemptuous of his "revisionist" article because his detailed rebuttal of Marder on fire-control was simply not borne out by the facts (i.e. ill-informed twaddle). I've only just gotten round to reading it, but Matthew S. Seligmann's new article "New Weapons for New Targets: Sir John Fisher, the Threat from Germany, and the Building of HMS Dreadnought and HMS Invincible, 1902-1907" in the latest International History Review demolishes every single one of Fairbanks' arguments with detailed evidence on the importance of salvo-firing, torpedo ranges and other reasons leading to the Dreadnought "revolution". Just thought I'd let you know (as at some point I will remove the offending parts in question). --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. I don't have access to the IHR... I don't suppose you have a copy of the article in question which I might be able to read? The Land (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Drop me a line via "Email this user" and I'll send you a pdf of it, no bother. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a chance to read through the article yet and draw any conclusions? Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 03:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Back to this old saw again. Haven't commented on the A-Class review for Dreadnought as I've only got back to my collection of books this week. I'm still slightly unhappy with a section on fire control in "The switch to all-big-gun designs" and thought I'd bring it up with you:

"A uniform calibre of gun meant streamlined fire control. The designers of Dreadnought preferred an all-big-gun design because it would mean only one set of calculations about adjustments to the range of the guns.[27] Some historians today hold that a uniform calibre was particularly important because the risk of confusion between shell-splashes of 12-inch (30 cm) and lighter guns made accurate ranging difficult. However, this viewpoint is controversial; firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important,[28] and confusion of shell-splashes does not seem to have been a concern of those working on all-big gun designs.[29] Nevertheless, the likelihood of engagements at longer ranges was important in deciding the heaviest possible guns should become standard, hence 12-inch (30 cm) rather than 10-inch (25 cm)."

"firecontrol in 1905 was not advanced enough to use the salvo-firing technique where this confusion might be important" - Brooks in Dreadnought Gunnery demonstrates that salvo-firing was already being used by British pre-dreadnoughts, and to my mind Seligmann demolished Fairbanks' opinions on this.

As to confusion between shell splashes, I've suggested it before on Wikipedia that it would be like stating the bleeding obvious to these people. An acquaintance of mine has shown me that the matter is addressed in fair detail in the U.S.N. "Gunnery Instructions" for 1905 on pp 376-377 as part of the chapter "Note on Fire Control". It is perhaps worth quoting the preliminary statement by the British Committee on Designs on 3 January 1905: "The great value of uniformity of armament hardly requires comment; it is so self-evident." It then lists interchangeability of parts, simplicity of fire-control (with all that can mean), simplicity of ammunition supply and less ammunition required, and "others which led to the adoption of uniformity of armament which are intimately associated with the calibre of gun decided upon for the main armament of battleships."

Comments? I did notice btw the more balanced change you made to earlier mention of the issue. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right - we shouldn't rely on Fairbanks very much. Do you want to amend the offending paragraph? Your comments on the A-class review would be useful, as everyone there has very strong opinions about dashes and reference formatting, but virtually nothing to say about naval history. The Land (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire

Gidday from NZ, thanks for reverting those annoying symbols in this article; I was going to do the job myself, they were driving me up the wall! Cheers.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WWI topic list

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War I task force/Centenary drive#High-profile topics. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 00:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! The Land (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: World War I eastern front

No problem, it was my pleasure. I'm just glad I could help. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Alaska-class FAC

I replied to your concern here a few days ago, but I think that you missed it. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Satsuma/ Settsu

If it can help, Japanese photograph before 1956 are PD anyway. Cheers PHG (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Message for you

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

– Joe Nutter 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Messines

Sure thing. I'm in the middle of a few other projects right now, but I'll add it to my list. Cam ^(Chat) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Turtle ship

Hello. I remember that in 2007, you were very active in creating the article Ironclad warship. In that process, material such as the Turtle ship was moved out of the page. Since then, there is a long-going dispute on the page itself, whether the vessels featured iron armour or not. To solve the matter I recently asked User:Bradv for his Third Opinion. Following his suggestion, I rewrote then the section basing every single assertion on published references. However, User:Melonbarmonster2 keeps on discussing me, instead of the contents, and has repeatedly removed material without proper explanation. His history shows IMHO that he confines most of his edits to the defense of perceived attacks on Korean history and culture. I put a template on his talkpage, but he wants none of that. Since Bradv seems currently in WP holidays, I am turning to you to take a look at the matter. See Talk:Turtle ship Regards 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Gun Powder Ma (talk)

Thanks. Sounds like a good suggestion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For excellent work on Dreadnought - a difficult topic to work to A-Class, I am delighted to award you the Barnstar of Diligence. Cam (Chat) 05:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

dreadnought HARI

• If I have time, I'll do a HARI on dreadnought's FAC. Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 05:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1(f)

Hi. I'm sorry to say that your minority status on the issue is becoming ever clearer. Please re-read the debate, and reconsider your revert.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

• I'm looking at your contribs and see no evidence that you posted notice of the disussion on-wiki. I assume you IRL chat?? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry I accused you of canvassing. I was completely wrong.
• It seems to me that some folks are now recanting their Opposes. The whole argument seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding; see my last post to the page.
• I think we need to move toward a !vote soon. Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

Way to go on getting dreadnought to FA. That is one heck of a beastly article, and many people will learn a lot from it. Great job. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your contributions to four current featured articles in maritime warfare that could all be considered "core": battleship, pre-dreadnought, and ironclad warship in 2007 and dreadnought just yesterday. In addition, you have significantly contributed to six of the seven articles in the history of the battleship series: the four above (assuming "battleship" itself counts), treaty battleship and battleships in World War II. We all at MILHIST greatly appreciate the effort you have put into these articles, my friend—and I'm sure that readers do too. For the coordinators, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)