User talk:Benea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Benea)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles
UK changes
{{WikiProject Ships|class=|importance=}}


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Buggie111 (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you back[edit]

Hi Benea. Swell to see you back in action again. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Murray (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

Carabinieri (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

About admiral Robert Mann[edit]

Dear Benea. I've just started an article about Robert Mann (admiral), from the age of Nelson, Vice-Admiral of the Red. Would you help me to find more information about him? I think he took part during the blockade of the french fleet at Brest, and that was present in many sea engagements between the french and british fleets. Such an able seaman deserves to be mentioned in the Trafalgar Campaign. By the way, I think his dad died fighting a french ship off Madeira in 1762, although the year seems contradictory. Greetings ^_^ Pietje96 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Found the guy.. Robert Mann, captain in 1757, died that year fighting a french letter of marque named Gloire. Pietje96 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Pietje, Mann is a very interesting character, I had often thought of writing an article on him myself, but lacked some important details. I'd be happy to add to what you've already got, the nmm has a fine portrait of him incidentally. Mann was not involved in the Trafalgar Campaign incidentally though. He was involved in a fairly controversial episode in 1796, when in command of a detached squadron, he disobeyed orders and left the Mediterranean to return to Britain. He was ordered to strike his flag and never had an active command again. His father, you are right to say, was killed in command of the Milford while capturing a French privateer in 1762. You've made a very good start, I'll add what little I can. Benea (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Benea, thank you for the information & your contributions. I've created another article that you may find interesting: Thomas Frederick (Royal Navy officer). This one also needs to be improved. Greetings ^_^ Pietje96 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Benea. I got a little question for you. Do you know what British commander blockaded Cadiz in 1798? In the article of spain's admiral Mazarredo, it can be read the following confusing content: Mazarredo quitted Cadiz with 22 ships of the line, 3 frigates and the French frigate La Vestal, chasing the British squadron blockading Cadiz, consisting of 9 ships of the line and some frigates under Vice-Admiral Robert Mann, who managed to scape. (!) Who was blockading the port? I don't think it was Mann... Well, apart from that, I'm pleased to inform you that I've created these two articles: Charles Dashwood (Royal Navy officer) & Courtenay Boyle, both great admirals. You've free will to improve them ;) As far as I know, Boyle's frigate, the Seahorse, had a very interesting career in the Royal Navy. I'm surprised there's not an article about that ship yet. Cheers Pietje96 (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well spotted, it certainly wasn't Mann in 1798. The writer is almost certainly confusing this incident with de Langara's expedition in 1796. In 1798 it was elements of Lord St Vincent's fleet, which was covering the Atlantic coast of the Iberian peninsula. St. Vincent appears to have commanded the Cadiz blockade, with Captain Thomas Troubridge commanding the inshore squadron. When Sir Roger Curtis arrived at the fleet in May with a squadron, Troubridge was ordered to take his squadron into the Mediterranean, and Curtis's squadron took over the blockading duties. Mazarredo did not leave Cadiz in 1798, he did manage to put to sea in May 1799 when the blockading squadron under Lord Keith put into Gibraltar to cover Admiral Bruix's fleet as it passed into the Mediterranean, but Mazarredo's ships suffered heavy damage in a storm and put into Cartagena. I'll take this erroneous information out of his article, and cast my eye over the other two that you've written. Best, Benea (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Flagmen of Lowestoft[edit]

Hello, I was on a long wikibreak and just now noticed your contribution with the piece on the Flagmen of Lowestoft. Nice work. I love those images. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Barrow[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Stewart (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Charles Stewart (Royal Navy officer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. I just have a minor query on the image license, so would appreciate you having a look at it, please SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi there, I just thought I would drop by and let you know that I responded to your comment at template:Did you know nominations/Mark A. Clark (general). Cheers, — -dainomite   00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I also added an alternate hook that I think is more interesting and I added alot more content and references to the article. Cheers, — -dainomite   05:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Stewart (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Chilean ship Lautaro (1800)[edit]

Hi Benea, Keysanger and I would appreciate it if you had a moment to comment on the talk page for the article on Chilean ship Lautaro (1818). The article was originally Chilean ship Lautaro (1818), the date reflecting her entry into the Chilean navy, after her service as the East Indiaman Windham, launched in 1800. Keysanger moved the article to reflect the launch year. Essentially, I would prefer to move the article to Windham (1800), with supporting redirects, on the grounds that hybrid names are confusing and that generally ship articles should bear the name of the first incarnation. Keyswanger prefers the move he initiated, arguing that the vessel means more to the Chileans than Windham does to anyone, and that ship article names should reflect launch years. Your thoughts? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benea, Many thanks. Either solution works for me. I will see what Keysanger's reaction is. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, thanks for the help. Keysanger reverted to the Chilean ship Lautaro (1818), and I created a redirect for WIndham (1800). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem, glad it all got work out. Benea (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I've written a piece on Anna, the store ship in Anson's squadron see Anna (ship). She was burnt at Juan Fernandez in 1741. On lloyds register there is an Anna Maria Margaretta listed as lost on 15 May 1741, the day she was burnt. I'm looking for more info, and also of her Master, Mr Gerrard. Can you assist? Thanks! (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure she was burnt? Anson writes that she was broken up, and in September rather than May? She only reached Juan Fernandez on 16 August, so I would assume that this Anna Maria Margaretta is a different ship? And where have you found the reference? The first Lloyd's Register was only in 1764. As to Gerrard, or Gerard, there's not much I can find at first glance other than references to him in the accounts. He got 300 pounds from Anson for the purchase of his ship for stores though. And that what you already have, that some of his former sailors preferred not to serve under him in the Gloucester, though apparently only 'one or two' out of the ten men that hard formed the crew of the pink. I'll try and dig a little deeper though. Benea (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC):

Hi, thanks for the reply. I was writing from memory, will get the online reference to the ship insurance record, you're right, can't have been Lloyds but another source of merchant vessel list, cannot recall which one, will get it later today from my other computer which has my search history, but the coincidence that the date is the day after the arrival is potentially significant, the historical record may reflect that information. I agree she was probably broken-up, but most likely the hulk was burnt, but will need to look at the sources, Glynn says broken-up and I think Pack says burnt? Do you have the source that only "one or two" of Gerrard's crew petitioned? Many thanks for your assistance!

It's in Anson's book, I'm not sure which page as per your edition, but in mine it's page 159.

The Pink being thus broken up, Mr Gerard, with the hands belonging to the Pink, were sent aboard the Gloucester; as that ship had buried the greatest number of men, in proportion to her complement. But afterwards, one or two of them were received on board the Centurion, on their own petition, they being extremely averse to sailing in the same ship with their old master, on account of some particular ill usage they conceived they had suffered from him.

Note that Anson also writes that the Anna was broken up. Heaps's Log of the Centurion which included details of all the ships could only say of the Anna that she was scuttled on 20 August 1741. I'd be surprised if she was burnt, Anson had been unwilling to fire the ships' guns in case they alerted any Spanish on the island to the presence of the British ships and word got out of their mission. Burning a ship would have certainly run that risk. And the useful timbers would have made burning her a foolish proposition. Anson notes that he arranged her purchase specifically to break her up for her parts, which "would be useful in refitting the other ships, and which were at present very scarce in the squadron..." As to more details, Heaps couldn't add more than a very basic summary, no launch dates at all. Colledge similarly only notes that she had been hired in 1739, i.e. before the Anson expedition, and was purchased in 1741, i.e. by Anson at Juan Fernandez, and that she was scuttled on 28 August off Juan Fernandez. The Lloyd's Register for 1764 lists numerous ships named Anna or some variation on it, and I know from experience how easy it is to confuse one ship of the same name for another. But if you really have the Anna Maria Margaretta listed as lost on 15 May 1741, it's still three months before Anson's Anna arrived at Juan Fernandez. Benea (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay good, I'll try to find the reference to 'burnt', in the meantime the reference to Anna Maria Margaretta was in Lloyds list, see this link- Lloyds list It probably is a coincidence, but interesting it was the day after Anna arrived in Juan Fernandez. I'm pulling the Admiralty records Glyn Williams references regarding the planning of the voyage to see if I can find details of Anna, her owners and Master there. Oberon Houston (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sorry my mistake, Anna was aproaching Socorro in mid-May your right. Very unlikely there is a link. Sorry for the confusion.Oberon Houston (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Blue Riband's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Lord George Graham[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Captain Lord George Graham in his Cabin[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

HMS Asia (1811)[edit]


I can totally see the point of taking out links to external articles if wiki articles already exist. I do not see the point in adding redline links to a non-existent article, unless the person who has done that action is going to commit themselves to populate those articles to a B-Class level of content within the next 30 days, and has instant access to a dozen varied sources for each article.

It is in nobody's interest to repeat ad-nauseum the content of an already existing source, such as the websites of the late Michael Phillips, or Paul Benyon. (The more common name for total repetition is plagiarism, and I believe this is not allowed under the principles of Wikipedia.) It is for this reason that I have restored the links. If you can provide substantive evidence that the progressive course of action, as outlined in the previous paragraph, is going ahead, I will unequivocally undo said action. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No Keith, I'm sorry but you are completely wrong here. On the one hand, redlinks in articles are fine. Have a read of this guideline for a better idea of why. Secondly, external links placed in the body of the article and masquerading as internal wikipedia links are most certainly not fine. You should not be tricking readers into thinking there is an article on wikipedia and then have that link suddenly and unexpectedly take them to a different website entirely. There is no requirement that if you add a redlink you must create an article for it within a set amount of time, or that I must have a minimum amount of varied sources to do so. Incidentally, I do have many sources, you will find that many ship articles of this period were created by me, as are the articles of quite a few of the men who commanded or served aboard them. My work includes most of the featured articles on the ships of this period. I say this not to try and intimidate you, but to suggest that I do know how ship articles should and shouldn't be written. I'll say incidentally that as far as Benyon's and Phillips' sites go, though useful, they have some significant limitations and may not pass as reliable sources. Therefore you should try to avoid using them where possible. Benea (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I keep coming across redlink articles, where the link was created a long time ago, and the person who created the link has deemed that the subject is worthy of an article, yet is not prepared to "put their money where their mouth is" by creating and researching said article.
My use of external links had been done, given that nobody in the wider community has deemed the vessels to be significant enough to justify a wiki article, and that one source of info is better than no source of info. It is not being done to "trick" people. In the specific instances, nothing was being done to turn the redlinks into articles.
The maxim "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created" was therefore deemed to apply in the instance when the external linkages were inserted. I am more comfortable with plain text names, rather than links to articles which will never be written.
There are ship articles out there which do need extra sourced content added. It seems far better to have time spent on this (i.e. beefing up the content from HMS Asia from existing sources), than to set up links to articles that will never get written.
I am also against the idea of creating stubs on insignificant vessels, for the sake of it, where the creator has plagiarised Rif Winfield or a similar single source, and has no substantiated intention of progressively updating said article using several sources. (Were a person to write about HMS Dover, a vessel which is not as significant as say HMS Amphion, then certainly it would be challenging to find other sources). It sounds as though we have some common ground. Keith H99 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
For the first part of your reply, you are wholly wrong that nothing is being done to write articles, or that these articles will never be written. This time five years ago there were far fewer ship articles than exist now. Now every ship of the line of the age of sail has an article, many of the frigates do, and so do many of the smaller ships. But there have been over 15,000 ships in the Royal Navy in its history. If there are still red links it is because we are still working on this mammoth task to research and write their articles. Commissioned warships are considered notable, therefore they should be redlinked in anticipation of the time their article will be written. What they should not be done is externally linked. I'm sorry if you disagree, but the policies are quite clear on this. If you want to take on some of this effort, to put your money where your mouth is, as you say, then please feel free to contribute in this way.Or if you would prefer to build content in existing articles, feel free as well, but as a courtesy, please don't assume that other people are in the wrong by not rushing to fill every red link they create. Or that not expanding an article beyond a stub is worse than having no article. People choose to contribute in different ways, and the fact that you can now expand an article like HMS Asia with snippets of your own information is testament to the fact that someone went ahead and created an article from a redlink, that you can now edit yourself. That article previously only had one source, now it has several. Wikipedia is expanding slowly over time. There's no rush, and no need to say 'well, an article hasn't been written in the time wikipedia has been in existence, therefore it never will be written.' Benea (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I second Benea on this. First, I often put in red links. Frequently in researching one vessel I also have info on other vessels. This is especially true with respect to prizes when several ships share. That doesn't mean that I intend to get to it soon; it may not be a priority, but that doesn't mean that I will never get to it. I have found that I sometimes benefit from red links that I or others have inserted when I write an an article, click on "What links here", and find that some officer or other vessel's history has intersected with the history of the one I worked on and perhaps has something that I can incorporate. Red links also, as Benea has suggested, sometime get me intrigued and I follow up and write an article. (By chance, I am working on one now.) As for the notability of some smaller vessels - all I can say is that they can often surprise you. It is not unusual for some of these vessels to have a quite striking incident of some sort in their history. Lastly, on the subject of Michael Phillips and Paul Benyon, I salute their work, and use it for guidance for incidents to look for, but try to avoid citing them. I discovered early on that Phillips never cites his sources and that Benyon rarely does unless he links to James. The problem is, when someone doesn't cite their sources, citing them does not provide verifiability. With Phillips, I would estimate that 98% of his material comes from the Naval Chronicle and Marshall, and both of them draw heavily (frequently verbatim) on the London Gazette. Some of Phillip's material I have not been able to find. I suspect that some is from issues of the Naval Chronicle that aren't online, and the rest I just don't know. As for PBenyon, his stuff seems to come from newspaper archives to which he has access that I don't, so I cannot find the original source. I don't question the existence of sources for either website, I am just not happy citing something whose origins are occluded. Rif Winfield provides outstanding info, but he is occasionally incorrect, or incomplete, either because he cannot cover every incident, or because the Admiralty records he drew on are themselves are incorrect or incomplete. Sometimes I find myself taking an incident from a history I am working on and plugging it into a stub, or disambig page. I grant that this can make some articles look disjointed, but it may save someone a little work later. Net-net, different people work in different ways, and that's alright. Some, like Benea, like to write one good, complete article after another. I prefer to write small articles about obscure vessels, and filling in bits where I can. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Benea, your comments are acknowledged. I work on a basis that a statement is plausible if it can be backed up with facts.
"Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created".
The comment 'you are wholly wrong ... that these articles will never be written' is a very general comment. With reference to the aforementioned wikipedia policy, and the specific redline articles in the HMS Asia article, there is currently no substantive evidence that these will ever become articles. Were there the case that a redline ship article cleanup were in place, this would be different, but these specific articles are awaiting creation, or Godot. Keith H99 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel you do users like Acad Ronin and others who do write ship articles a very great disservice by your statement. Their work is surely the evidence that these redlinks are being steadily filled in. But with as I have said, there are 15,000 ships to write, and by your previous statement I assume you want them to be well written, so it is unreasonable to condemn the volunteers here for having failed to fill all of them in by now. I'm disappointed that I cannot persuade you to take the long view of this, but I'm happy to assume at least that you plan to leave the current situation unchanged. If you find the concept that there are many redlinks and as yet no one is planning to write them too uncomfortable, then I might suggest that you let us worry about that, and you can continue to contribute as you prefer to. Benea (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A concluding comment. For HMS Asia, I will leave the situation unchanged. Your assertion is correct, I am indeed uncomfortable about redlinks where as yet nobody is planning to write them in a defined period of time.
I do feel uneasy about redlinks in articles: 'do not create lists or other pages in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged either to write the article first or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.'
A well written dissertation's introduction should be clear to communicate to the reader as to why the subject is worthy of being covered. It is laudable to consider documenting every ship of the Royal Navy, but whilst there are strong reasons as to why HMS Bellerophen should have an article (and there are a multitude of documentary sources), the materiality of HMS Dover is not so strong. I have commenced stubs on Wikipedia, and the stubs have been marked with Notability tags soon thereafter. To that end, I have added to the article in question, using several sources of info, to elucidate as to why the subject is notable. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: adminship[edit]

If you are so inclined, please let me know if you want a nominator at RfA. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

After giving it some thought, sure, thanks! Benea (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Great news! You'll be fine as an Admin. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Taylor (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for your many links, cats, edits, detail and corrections on Admiral Whitaker. Seems like a fairly important guy but oddly no article and no painting I can find. Still a much more professional article thanks to your help Victuallers (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, yes, there are a lot of interesting officers out there that don't have articles yet. Please keep up all the good work, and I'd be happy to do any fix up work. You would think a portrait would exist somewhere, but possibly in a private collection. I'll keep an eye out though, sometimes they turn up. Benea (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Solomon Ferris[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Lushington (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi! 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) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bristol class screw frigate[edit]

Hi, Ben!
Do you think you can fix some erroneous entries for me. If you look at entries for British wooden-hulled screw frigates, you will see that there are references to a so-called Immortalité class allegedly grouping the frigates Immortalité (1859), Newcastle (1860), Bristol (1861), Glasgow (1861) and Undaunted (1861) - and the author attributes the design of this so-called class to William Symonds.
The trouble is that this data is sheer bunkum. For a start, the Immortalité was one of three frigates of the Emerald class (although Immortalité was lengthened during construction by another 14 feet compared with her sisters Emerald and Melpomene). She should not be grouped with the Newcastle, Bristol, Glasgow and Undaunted, which while of similar size constituted an entirely different and later design, actually termed the Bristol class to which 14 ships were ordered (although ten of these were cancelled). Thus there was never an Immortalité "class". And incidentally, William Symonds (who left office in 1848) never had anything to do with the designs for any of these screw frigates of the 1850s!
I do know the website from which the erroneous information came. Sadly, it's factually incorrect!
Can you kindly correct the entries for these five frigates (including the templates at the bottom of their respective pages, which I don't know how to do)? The actual composition of these classes are set out in the article List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy and can be found in print in "The Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889" (as well as in the forthcoming fourth volume in my British Warships in the Age of Sail series, which will be published early in 2014 and will cover all RN vessels of 1817-1863, including the early steam vessels). Many thanks! Regards, Rif.
Rif Winfield (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rif, hope you and yours are very well! Sorry to have been slow in replying, been on a bit of an extended wikibreak. I've had a look at the different sources, and consulted the internet source the article on Bristol seemed to have been based on. I agree with your concerns, and frankly the internet source wouldn't stand up as a reliable source. I've edited the template which should remove any reference to an Immortalite class, and I've removed the erroneous detail from Bristol, as well as a section that had been copied and pasted from another internet source. I think this should have got rid of any claims of an Immortalite class, since it was only on that ship page (when I looked) that such claims were being made. Best! Benea (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ship index request[edit]

Benea, I know it's been a long time since I last asked, but would you mind doing a ship index page for HMS Mallard? I've added it to the list at User:Benea/Shiplist pages. Thanks. Shem (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem Shem, happy to help. Good to see you around again, I'm just back from a rather extended wikibreak myself. Benea (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much indeed. It's good to be back - and to see you're here too. Shem (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Royal Navy
Thank you for quality articles on the Royal Navy, ships including historic ones, such as HMS Speedy (1782), and especially people, and for portraying yourself in your contributions alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 530th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Three years ago, you were recipient no. 530 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Graf Adolf von Goetzen[edit]

I know, the correct writing of the name Goetzen is very controversial, but I think, the family von Goetzen will know it at the best. So, if you want to know the correct writing of the name, look at his tombestone in Hamburg or look on this youtube film ( Then I think you will remove your correction of my writing on the page Liemba. Greetings --Ihnen (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Moremacsun 1940/41[edit]

Good catch on SS Mormacsun with the date. I was using the usually reliable shipbuildinghistory with a specific date, delivery "8-Jun-41" in a time and USMC # ordered sequence, that is also found in some other sources. Now after checking Lloyd's 1940-41 where the fact the ship is listed supports 1940 and the next two years with 1940 listed (note three other Mormac ships in the 1941-42 listing have changed years) also lends support to another glitch in several otherwise reliable sources. Several official histories mention Mormacsun in connection with the first shipments of aircraft to Australia and Java December 1941-January 1942. Specifically the ship is noted as carrying sixty-seven crated P-40s that were quite important in those early days. Several of the sources cite the ship as being 4,996 tons—a figure matching the Mormacsun already sold to Brazil. The ship carrying those P-40s had to have been the C3. Such fast prewar rush from June to war zone six months later is possible, but certainly a very new ship. The 1940 date pretty well nails the fact the ship involved was the still relatively new C3 and not the earlier 4,996 ton Mormacsun. Palmeira (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but yes, you are quite right I think. I had been working up the shiplist page as you will have seen, when the discrepencies between various sources started to occur to me. I did some more digging, and as you have seen, I think the correct result is as the page now shows. But of course I will be interested to see any more information that comes to light, and will keep an eye out myself. Benea (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for George St Lo[edit]

Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

George Thorp[edit]

Hi Benea,

To help me better understand Wikipedia concepts will you please let me know why you removed the link to the German article about the Philippine frigates subject to the cutting out operation off Santa Cruz? Is there a taboo about linking to pages in another language? I thought that page to be of significance, given that there seem to be very few references to this action. Scribes52 (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Scribes, internal links made by using the square brackets ([[ ]]) should only be to links within the english wikipedia, i.e. this site. External links, and the links to the other-language wikipedias should be avoided in text, as they take the reader out of this website unexpectedly, and in this case, to one in a foreign language. Given that the section you want to link to is a fairly small part of the German article on the Battle of Santa Cruz de Tenerife (1797), I'd suggest you added a translated version on the action with the frigates to our own article on the battle, and then link to the appropriate section if you wish. Wikipedia:Translation has more. Benea (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Another question if I may... my searches haven't disclosed documentation for the form of link you substituted for the Thisbe - {{HMS|Thisbe|1783|6}}. What are its parameters please? If there's some documentation on it would you please point me its right direction. Thank you. Scribes52 (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. When you see the {{ brackets, what follows is a call to a template. If you wish to study and learn more about that particular template you can replace the {{ with the format 'Template:xxx' where xxx is the name of the template. For example the title of the template linked to with the {{HMS|Thisbe|1783|6}} link, is Template:HMS. Details that follow the '|' are the optional parameters that you can feed into templates. This template allows you to display ship link titles using the HMS format correctly. There are explanations on that page for how to use the template effectively, and links to other similar templates such as Template:USS and Template:Ship. Benea (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Very helpful Benea, thank you. Much appreciated. Scribes52 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Lt Burke[edit]

Thank you Benea - about the info about Lt Bruke not being on the HMS Mars but HMS Doris - have transfered the info over. Do you have any other information about Lt Burke (am only interested due to the link with Walter Burke !)

Hello David, there's not a lot of information on the junior Walter Burke readily to hand, but I'll tell you what I know. He appears to have been commissioned a lieutenant on 19 May 1800. I'm not sure why the Gentleman's Magazine calls him 'of the Mars'. He may have served aboard this ship earlier in his career, or it may be a mistake. By July 1801 he is a lieutenant on the Doris, where he leads one of the boats against the anchored Chevrette. Boats from HMS Beaulieu, Robust and Uranie are also involved in the attack. At some point in the attack Burke is severely wounded in the shoulder by grapeshot. He dies later in Plymouth Hospital of a fever occasioned by his wound. He is said to have been the brother of Henry Burke, who became a lieutenant on 6 July 1796, was severely wounded at the cutting out of the French privateer Guepe at Vigo Bay on 29 August 1800 (and was wounded on at least two other actions), commanded HMS Seagull from June 1802, and was lost with her when she disappeared at sea in February 1805. From this, and a reading of the wording of the Gentleman's Magazine, they are stating Lieutenant Walter Burke was a son of Purser Walter Burke, something confirmed by Mackenzie's Trafalgar Roll. Benea (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for James Young (1717–1789)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sir Charles Saxton, 1st Baronet[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Sir Charles Saxton, 1st Baronet at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Charles Saxton, 1st Baronet[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMY Alberta[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

HMS Lily[edit]

Benea, would you mind doing a ship index for HMS Lily? It's not part of the Google books preview of Colledge, or I'd do it myself. Many thanks, Shem (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy work on Tiger class cruiser[edit]

Hi Benea.

I saw your contribution to the Tiger class cruiser Talk page. Entirely agree with you. However, I've posted some material on the Tiger class Talk page myself that should explain the tactical rationale for those ships. A topic that the anonymous editor seems to have no knowledge of. Perhaps it will help future editors to reconstruct that article. I don't feel willing to do that myself, esp since there is so much wrong with it that it would perhaps be better to scrap it entirely and start over on a clean sheet. George.Hutchinson (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Translating HMS Temeraire (1798) in french[edit]

Hi Benea.

Last months, the article HMS Temeraire (1798) has been translated in french. During the nomination procedure for good article status (GA) on french project, few questions has come into attention. Do you have any informations about it ?

  • Sometimes, the HMS Dreadnought (1801) of Neptune class is referred as the Dreadnought class. Do you know why ? I heard that the Dreadnought was later reclassed as a 104-gun first rate, but the current article of the Dreadnought doesn't mention it.
  • We know why Harvey has been replaced but not why Kelly was (in Return to service part). It's temporary but does he get a promotion or something ?
  • Nelson was told to pick whichever ships he liked to serve under him, and one of those he specifically chose was Temeraire. Isn't that something usual ? Or does he really have the choice, assuming that he inherited of the fleet of Colingwood ?

Thanks a lot for your excellent work. Like tears in rain (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear LTIR, these are good questions, I'll do what I can to answer them, though I'm afraid I don't have many of my usual sources to hand.

  • The Dreadnought/Neptune question relates to how they've been classified by subsequent naval historians. The namesake of a ship class is usually the first ship to be built and enter service, but this class is a little different. The first to be ordered, laid down and named is Dreadnought, but she's actually the last to be launched. The first to be launched and to enter service is Neptune. Some historians (e.g. Winfield) use the first criteria to give a name to the class. Others (e.g. Lavery) use the second. As an aside, all of the second rates were reclassified during the period of their existence; as 12pdr class Second Rates in 1808, and as 104-gun First Rates in February 1817. Of course for all three this was entirely theoretical, all had been placed in ordinary/reclassified into other roles before their reclassification as first rates, and none returned to active service.
  • Looking at some of the records for Harvey's parliamentary career, what I suspect is happening is that Harvey is taking periods of parliamentary leave to go to London. Certainly within two days of Fawke having taken over, Harvey is speaking in parliament on naval matters. What might be happening is that Kelly commanded for a period, Harvey returned and resumed command, and then left once more, with Fawke being the jobbing captain brought in to fill the spot for a short period on that occasion.
  • The commanders of fleets, especially flag officers, had quite substantial powers, and Nelson was particularly caressed by the ministry. "It is reported that Barham asked Nelson which officers he wanted to accompany him, flourishing a Navy List and telling him to take his pick. Nelson is said to have replied, 'Choose yourself, my lord, the same spirit actuates the whole profession; you cannot choose wrong.' That seems to have been only a gesture, however, for Nelson then sat down and carefully selected the ships that he most wanted to take with him, dictating them to Barham's secretary. One of them, personally selected by Nelson, was the Temeraire." (Willis, p. 181) While he would be expected to integrate Collingwood's existing ships if only because the British were heavily outnumbered at least initially, flag officers had wide latitude in taking particular followers and requesting particular officers to be assigned to their command. Nelson would have been restricted by which ships were actually available and could be detached from other commands, or made ready for sea, but he was able to select from a reasonable pool of ships. Incidentally, the sense of officer privileged could hamper a commander like Nelson. When Calder returned home for his court-martial, Nelson could have made him sail in a small ship. Instead he felt obliged to defer to Calder's feelings, and allowed him to depart in the powerful Prince of Wales. In another example, Philip Durham, another officer specially requested by Nelson for his fleet was asked by Calder to return with him to give evidence. Durham refused, a breach of etiquette perhaps, but he was within his rights to do so.

I hope this gives some clarification, it's good to see this spreading across wikipedias! Benea (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. Change has been made and information given. Next translation step will be HMS Bellerophon (1786). Like tears in rain (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarah West[edit]

Benea - please stop editing the Sarah West page. I know the whole thing and know its a lie - why would you punish someone like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnylover23 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bunnylover, I'm afraid it is in the nature of wikipedia that anyone can edit articles, and you aren't really able to tell other people not to edit them. On the Sarah West page, the allegations are being reported in a wide number of news outlets ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc), and while you may say that these are lies, I'm afraid the sources support what the article says. Please stop removing cited information, your reasoning of "This is untrue - this was made up by someone who was sacked but whose dad is an Admiral in the Navy. The Navy have agreed there is no proof that this allegation is true. Usual lies made up by the same papers who accused Liverpool Hillsborough victims of theft.....enough said." is not sufficient reasoning, what matters on wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Benea (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Peacock ships in British navy[edit]

Benea I put back my revisions, because only two of those ships named Peacock have articles written about them. Red link means there is no article, so I see no point in writing as if there is an article, and that is why I made those changes. If the pipe 6 does not mean sixth rate in that template, then please correct that part of my changes. I do not understand why you changed back to restore the red links. --Prairieplant (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Prairieplant, if you did not understand why I made those changes, it would perhaps have been better to ask first. First of all, please read WP:REDLINK to understand why it is fine to use redlinks in these instances, and indeed that they should be used there. Those articles will be written at some point and then they would be blue links. The pipe 6 does not mean sixth rate, it is part of the template formatting codes, please see Template:HMS for documentation on how this template works. Again, if you are unsure how a template works, going to that template's page is a good start as there will usually be usage documentation. Benea (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to template HMS, I was having trouble finding it to learn what the numbers meant, and now I see it is just a way to say what should be seen in the final copy, or what be typed after the pipe in the ordinary way to make wiki links. I do not agree that a red link is a reminder to write an article, especially on a disambiguation page. Red links are dead ends. Red links are for articles once existing and then pulled, in the topics I read. I will go back to the other format for now, especially because I can make clear that the one article titled HMS Peacock needs 1806 in parentheses following it. When you write those articles, then please do use the template again on the disambiguation page. For now, the disambiguation will point to two articles and four ships listed by year built and year demolished. I am going through the Patrick O'Brian books, with many HMS listed, and most of the time, the usual link brackets are used, by others, who make lists of every ship mentioned in a particular novel, British, American, French, or other nations. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Praireplant, that article, WP:REDLINK, is not something for discussion in this context. It is a guideline on wikipedia, and you are expected to follow it. The description, in a nutshell, is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." You are incorrect that "Red links are for articles once existing and then pulled". And it is not required that an article must be written for there to be a link to it. That article page is a WP:SETINDEX page, not a disambiguation page incidentally. I'm afraid this is becoming disruptive editing. If you continue to delete valid red links, after having been pointed to relevant guideline that shows red links are acceptable, then it will start being treated as vandalism. Benea (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
"Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." Preceding is a quote from the lead on your Redlink page. Are you going to write those articles? You never said, it would be good to know the answer. Please do not smear my name as you did at The Fortune of War talk page. I presented my views to you, thanked you on your talk page for finding a Wikipedia template I could not find by my own searching. I would appreciate respectful dealings between us. I explained to you why I made the changes I made, politely, on your talk page. The HMS Peacock list article is not worth all this kind of talk. I do not really understand why you are reacting with so much anger turned into accusations and smears of me and now threats. Accusations of what? Using a different format in editing to reach the same page, is that what has you angry? I am quite willing to communicate, but not with someone who is on the attack at me. It is clear we have different view points on a small point. I do not vandalize articles. I am sorry that this has made you so angry, but threats and accusations are not the way to go. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Prairieplant, Benea is completely correct re redlinks in a Setindex page. Furthermore, I find redlinks useful as an insertion point when I have prepared an article on a ship; not only do I insert there, but if saves me from having to change the Setindex page. As a third-party, I think you are greatly over-reacting to Benea's slightly exasperated but measured and polite response to your refusal to follow established WP policy. By repeatedly reverting his well-explained and completely correct reversions of our changes, you are committing something that approaches vandalism, no matter how well-intentioned your actions. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Acad Ronin Nice of you to step in for your friend. The HMS Peacock disambiguation page is much clearer now. From the perspective of one first encountering Benea, I find his demand that an editor check with him first rather than be bold in editing, is too much to ask. I posted to his talk page with the intent of learning and opening up communications, which is all a person can do seeing changes reverted with no explanation on a talk page. I can see his perspective, but I do not think he sees mine, and so it is, but it is calmer now, and he has his article as he wants it, red links intact. The proper title of the existing articles shows up, not hidden in what some editors call an 'Easter egg', so all is well. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate if the smears (charges of vandalism) on the Talk page of Wiki Project ships could be deleted. (earlier I misidentified the talk page where you place your smears, now I have it correct.) This issue is settled here on your talk page, Benea, and need not be spread across other articles than the one at issue, which was HMS Peacock, and the topic at issue, links and red links. I am not an editor who vandalizes articles. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Prairieplant, the cycle is WP:BRD - Bold, revert, and discuss. You were bold in your edits of this page, you were reverted because, as I pointed out, you were in the wrong as regards WP:REDLINK, you had misinterpreted the use of the template and had therefore added inaccurate information to the page, and you were not aware that this was not a WP:SETINDEX page, and not a disambiguation one. Having been reverted, it was up to you to open discussions if you did not understand why you were. Instead, you reverted that article right back to restore your changes, even though, as you admitted on my talkpage, you did not understand the reasons why you were reverted. I pointed you to the relevant guidelines, on which your response was to say that you did not agree with them, and promptly again restored your erroneous changes. At this point I was firm on the issue, and to avoid an edit war (WP:3RR) I requested more eyes, and simply noted what you had been doing. I did not accuse you of vandalism there, or indeed on this page, I simply said "If you continue to delete valid red links, after having been pointed to relevant guideline that shows red links are acceptable, then it will start being treated as vandalism." - if you continue to make edits that the community has identified as being unhelpful and against wikipedia guidelines, then that does become vandalism, and I was asking you to desist rather than have things reach that stage. I have no intention of smearing you, as you put it (indeed your accusation that I have been doing so is insulting), but if you fail to engage with WP:BRD and continue making bad edits, then it is usual that things will be escalated and more opinions will be requested on your behaviour. If you wish to avoid that, please be prompt in engaging with editors after your bold edits are reverted, and do not restore your edits until consensus has been reached for the changes. Finally, editing talk pages like this to remove valid comments and requests is bad form, though comments on that page will be archived after a little time has past. Again, if you wish to avoid requests for comment on your behaviour, please be stricter in following WP:BRD and don't simply keep reverting back to your changes because you disagree with the wikipedia guidelines. Benea (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Seems to me that Prarieplant is not here to collaborate with others. Suggest it is probably very near time to start handing out some high level warnings. Should they not be heeded, then we know what to do Face-wink.svg. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You folks are big on the threat business. All the articles are changed to the way you like them, so the topic is finished and done. Whatever lessons there were to learn, have been learned by me. I hope it is the same for you. Bye. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Would you be interested in gaining the tools (and a smart T-shirt)? I'm sure you've got what it takes. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I always umm and ahh over this. There are things I'd find it useful for I know, and I wouldn't mind getting stuck in a bit more. I've never gathered enough momentum though to go through the nomination process. Benea (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
One worry I had was that being an admin would mean less time for writing and too much time getting involved in disputes etc. It doesn't have to if you don't want it to. For me, having the tools means a few extra buttons which make editing easier, and the ability to step in an prevent small problems growing into bigger ones when necessary. I find the ability to protect articles is a very useful tool for getting editors to discuss issues. Should you decide to run, I'm sure you'd pass. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick reaction times[edit]

Hi there, I notice you've been reverting tendentious edits by an IP on War of Jenkins' Ear. He's been bothering me for months and I recently resorted to requesting semi-protection. I see he's back at it, but what's interested me is that you've reacted within - literally - one minute of the vandalism taking place at completely different times of day. I was quite impressed. How do you do that? Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Purely by chance as it happens. It's just come up when I've happened to refresh my watchlist, and I've been able to revert straight away. Had the changes been made at a different time, they might have sat around for longer, though hopefully someone would catch it before too long. Yes, he's been attempting to sneak those edits into that article, and to Invasion of Cuba (1741). Blocks are going to be difficult since it's a rotating ip address, so unfortunately we may have to look at semi-protection once more, unless he gets tired of it. Or perhaps being reverted instantly is going to make him think there's no point in continuing it any more. Benea (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gilbert Heathcote (Royal Navy officer)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

MV Ithaca?[edit]

I am curious about your move of this article to MV Ithaca when the ship as constructed through at least the start of WW II was driven by a triple expansion steam engine. I know of a number of ships that were converted to diesel so it is quite possible this ship had such a conversion. There is no mention or citation in the article indicating that. Do you have such information? Palmeira (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

French frigate Boudeuse[edit]

Ben, can I ask you to sort out a technical error which I can't fathom. I was editing the article on the French frigate Boudeuse, and it now doesn't appear to function properly at the start. Your technical proficiency being much better than mine, can you correct whatever error I've made please? The data I have inserted are correct (I could cite my forthcoming book on French Warships in the Age of sail, 1786-1861, but that would be a little premature as it's not out until early next year), so please leave that in. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for sorting this out! Regards, Rif.Rif Winfield (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Talk:James King (Royal Navy officer).
Message added 04:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 —Josh3580talk/hist 04:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:HMS Severn-1-.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:HMS Severn-1-.jpg, which you've attributed to Also, there's no evidence that is the copyright holder of the image. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RNVR Story from Palestine during British Mandate[edit]

I wonder if you can pick up the glove?, The story of Jewish Royal Navy Volunteers from Palestine in WW2 During the British Mandate .

I used google translate for the original Hebrew Link , but its translation is bad. It can provide the story but it is far from proper way. I can help on hebrew and critical words.

Here is the link.


Merry Christmas

Fttxguru (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Benea! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 5, 2015[edit]

Hi Benea. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before its day on the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank—I don't think Ben has been around in ages, but I'll try emailing him. I can look over the article (and the blurb) next week. Maralia (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks much ... while you're here, do you have an opinion on omitting the "Sirs" at TFA? I hear conflicting things. - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I am thoroughly uneducated on such things, being an American; that's precisely the kind of thing I would pester Ben about. Will see if I can scare him up. Maralia (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Bellerophon[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
You haven't been around lately, so may not see this for a while. But congratulations on yet another excellent piece of work in today's featured article, HMS Bellerophon. Euryalus (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:HMS Salmon-1-.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Salmon-1-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A medal for you![edit]

Dyk200N.svg The 200 DYK Nomination Medal
A belated thank you for having (now exceeded) the 200 mark for promoted DYK entries on Main page. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. North America1000 00:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

CCI Notice[edit]

Hello, Benea. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. SpinningSpark 15:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at the Copyright Investigations page. SpinningSpark 14:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)