User talk:Medcroft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reply to comments[edit]

Thank you for your comments regarding the article. Regarding the comments for the overall article:

  • The double L 4037 is an error from when I overhauled the article, thanks for catching it.
  • Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) mentions two "L4063"s, one unnamed and one named Jawada. The editors at Jane's have a reputation for factual accuracy, and unless a source can be found demonstrating that the two ships are one and the same and/or that JFS made a factual error, it should be left as is.
  • JFS specifically states that the twelve vessels "were transferred from the Royal Navy to the Army."

In regards to comments for specific ships, most of these appear to be personal observations made by yourself or colleagues (L4002, L4037, L4061, L4062). With no disrespect intended to your service or your personal experiences aboard these vessels, information in articles needs to conform to Wikipedia policy, in this case Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (emphasis in original). While the information you is no doubt true, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as it hasn't been published by a reliable source (defined as published materials with a solid fact-checking/editorial process supporting them and/or materials by an author regarded as authoritative on the subject... see the Wikipedia:Reliable sources content guideline for more detail), and therefore cannot be included in the article.

Some of your comments detail pennant numbers given to later ships with the same name (L4073, L4164). While relevant to the ship holding the number, I do not believe that it is relevant to the Mark 8 ships, in the same way that the pennant number for (as example) the cruiser HMAS Sydney has no bearing on the succeeding aircraft carrier of the same name.

I'm confused about your comments regarding L4073: you say that the "original" ship with that pennant was given to Malaysia...were there two separate ships with that pennant, or was L4073 transferred then returned? Was the "original" a Mark 8, or another vessel type? Which vessel was rescued off St Kilda? Coincidentally, reviews of "Atlantic Fury" would probably be a good starting point to verify the inspiration for the novel.

As for any images, a few would definitely be appreciated to illustrate the article. It would be better if you could upload them yourself at Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Upload) or over at Wikimedia Commons (Commons:Upload - you will need to establish an account there). If you are unable or unwilling to do so, leave a message at my talk page and I'll do what I can to help.

I'll keep researching things on my end as well: between us we should be able to find published sources for this information and get it into the article. Drop me a line if you have any further comments or queries. -- saberwyn 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comments[edit]

Sorry I have been away (in NZ!) and had other matters on my mind.
It does amuse me that you were born about 10 years after these craft went out of service.
This might be a useful reference for you:
You might also like to look at this:
Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) might be an authorative source but you might consider that they could also be wrong. Of the 32 ships (check your numbers again), 11 were never commissioned in the RN (because of a shortage of sailors) - about 40 Naval compared to about 20 Army personnel per ship - but were operated by the RASC (and subsequently the RCT). The exception is HMS Rampart which became HAMV Akyab - complete with altered bow doors.
Your comment:
Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) mentions two "L4063"s, one unnamed and one named Jawada
See comment above but Landing Craft numbers were always allocated meticulously.
With regards to:
L4073 HMAV Ardennes - "The new HMAV Ardennes (LCL) commissioned c.1977 was given Pennant Number L4001" - This is pertinent information.
"The original L4073 was sailed to Singapore in 1960 and delivered to the Malaysian Forces." I will research further and get back to you.
"The story of the rescue of L4073 off St Kilda is presumed to be the inspiration for the Hammond Innes novel "Atlantic Fury"." I admit that this might be a bit of Army Maritime folk-law but I will do my best to prove it. The rescue of L4073 is well documented!
This was a reference to HMAV Ardennes and not to “the original L4073” – apologies!
The references to the later HMAV Ardennes (LCL) L4003 and HMAV Arakan (LCL) L4001 are pertinent - HMAV Agheila (LCT) L4002 was still around at the time.
I have no knowledge of the naming conventions of the RN ships but the Army ships were all named after amphibious landings (successful and unsuccessful). These were not named or renamed after foreign cities starting with "A"!!!
Once again I have not interfered with your revision as I am now sick of "editorial wars". I will just leave it up to you.
I am still sorting the boxes to find the photos – I will get back to you.
Happy Christmas!

Medcroft (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Also corrected your spelling - sorry.

Me again[edit]

Thanks for uploading those photographs. They're pretty cool, and as the article grows in size, they will be very useful to illustrate various features and operations of the Mark 8s. I hope you don't mind me fidding with the captions... I'm trying to make them more informative for the non-naval reader. The pennant number doesn't really need to be there, as there is only one HMAV Abbeville referred to in the article, and its a bit jarring when reading. On another note, dare I ask what the story is behind that Polaris missile you were carting around?

Glad I could be amusing. :) The way I look at it, my interest is naval history, and its not really history if it happened during my lifetime. However, my second-hand knowledge and limited familiarity with British warships that didn't see service in the RAN means that I will make mistakes, so thanks for catching them. As long as the article gets corrected, all is good, regardless of who does it. -- saberwyn 06:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Medcroft Medcroft (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is one of the main points of wikipedia... people from across the world "fiddling with" articles to (most of the time) improve them with information from various sources.
Concerning the supply ship: Submarine Squadron 14 was the US Navy submarine force based at Holy Loch.[1] The wikipedia article has a list of the five tenders assigned to Holy Loch and the dates they were stationed of the names might ring a bell.
Looking forward to seeing the next wave of images. :) -- saberwyn 04:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:HMAV Abbeville (L4041).jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:HMAV Abbeville (L4041).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


That's fair enough Medcroft, but you must admit they aren't obviously amphibious operations (and I'm not aware there were any landings in the desert battles). If there is a reliable source that states these were amphibious operations I'm happy for it to be added, but my book doesn't make that distinction so I can only go with what it says. Can I assume you served on one of these vessels then? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Medcroft, I'm not trying to argue with you, and I certainly wouldn't want you to cease contributing. On the contrary your contributions have been extremely good – starting an article like this is an excellent way to help Wikipedia grow, and I was particularly pleased to see this one. You see I'm currently researching Fort Victoria, which was used by the RASC from 1946 to 1960 as a training centre for their Water Transport Units. After the Suez Crisis LCT training became one of the major courses there and these Mark VIIIs based at Portsmouth were used regularly until National Service ceased in 1960.
Anyway, I read the article and also saw the discussions on the talkpage. I actually wanted to help you out by adding a reliable source to some of the statements that weren't yet confirmed. I'm sure that in your service you probably did learn that the vessels were all named after amphibious operations, but my book didn't say that, so I amended the sentence accordingly. This is where wiki can sometimes be a little tough and I'm afraid that I can only echo some earlier comments - in this instance that Wiki is about verifiability, not truth . I know it sounds dumb – especially as sometimes the truth isn't verifiable – but without this rule the wiki would fall apart. Truth is extremely subjective and everyone would try to add their own if we didn't emphasise the need for reliable sources (and encyclopaedias are usually meant to reflect published sources anyway). So we can only go with what other reliable secondary sources have already said. Now I'm not saying that your experiences aren't reliable, only that they unfortunately don't meed Wiki's criteria. If you imagine it from a different perspective, what if a different person said that these ships were named after battles beginning with A that Montgomery won. Technically they'd be correct (I think, this is just an example), but that doesn't mean the Army specifically choose these names for that reason. It would be quite a leap to assume that from my book (which just says WWII battles) so I just go with what it says. If you can find a ref that states the ships were named after amphibious operations then that would be great - it would be more specific than my book but I wouldn't question it, especially as my book adds weight to it.
Speaking of my book, you might be interested in it as it covers the period you served on these vessels (has quite a few pics and stories as well, and mentions a bit about the landings at St Kilda). This is the one.
I do hope you'll reconsider quitting. I can see you've had rather a rough baptism to wikipedia and I'm sorry about that, I in no way meant to add to it. If you do choose to stay and need any guidance or help with anything please feel free to ask me and I'll do my best to help out. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: MK 8 LCTs[edit]

Clearly you do not have a copy of "The Army's Navy" because if you did you might look at page 228 which lists the origins of the RASC/RCT LCT names.

Regards Medcroft (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note the fact that only the final three entries, Arezzo, Arakan and Akyab are described as amphibious operations. Would you like any more proof? Ranger Steve (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed but all the others were also amphibious operations (including river crossings). Now getting very cross with you. Show me the proof!
Regards Medcroft (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're getting cross with me, but that really is your fault and not mine. I am not required to show you any proof that the other operations weren't amphibious - conversely it is you who are required to prove that they were. The table on 228 doesn't do that, neither does page 142 (the page I referenced in the article). In fact they both support what I wrote in the article (and have restored). Please don't adapt text to suit your opinions, especially when you know it isn't what the reference says. That is disruptive behaviour and is likely to get you blocked again.
I'm trying to help you Medcroft..... Ranger Steve (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Psychostevouk - Even a little bit of research would reveal that what I wrote is true. You offered me proof. Where is it? Perhaps your previous nom de plume provides a little insight as to your character! Medcroft (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. I don't like threats either! Medcroft (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we all take a deep breath and relax, please? Threats, snide comments, and shouting is not helping. From the sounds of things, you both have the same book. Ranger Steve says pages 142 and 228 support his view (named after battle starting with "A"). You disagree and say page 228 supports your view (named after amphibious operations). If I provided an address, would one of you be able to scan the two pages in question and email them to me, so I could offer a third opinion? -- saberwyn 11:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Saberwyn and thank you for your kind intervention. I will scan the pages in question and forward them to you. Should you not want to reveal your email address to all and sundry please email it to This is my public address and does attract a lot of spam but I will look out for any message from you. I agree with you in that we need a bit of breathing space. The book in question is "The Army's Navy" by Captain David Habesch - ISBN 1 86176 157 0. I intend to completely re-write the article anyway because it does not read well, but I will forward the text to you first for peer review and approval, if you would be so kind. I have to admit though that part of me wishes that I had not embarked on this project in the first place! Next task is to upload some more photographs but I am trying to verify the copyright status of them first. Medcroft (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I give in. I'm sorry if you perceived my warning that you're likely to get blocked as a threat. You've obviously done enough research into me to note that I'm not an admin and am thus unable to issue such blocks. I'm merely trying to point out that you've been blocked for disputes on this article before and are likely to be again if you continue to misrepresent a source. Saberwyn, sorry, I don't have a scanner but if Medcroft is happy to scan the pages then I'm sure you'll work this out. Medcroft, it's quite simple. I added info to say these were names issued after WWII battles, in an effort to help you out and added referenced material to the article. You disagree, that's fine but you cannot just adjust a footnoted sentence to suit your own opinion. If you do then I'm sorry, but I'll correct it. I've invited you to show a ref that supports that these names were applied after amphibious operations, I've positively welcomed it. But you haven't, and merely stating that other names were also amphibious operations or sosuch is OR. Please do provide a ref, and this can be resolved. You seem to think I'm deliberately trying to argue with you, but I can assure you I'm not - this seems like a ridiculous thing to be arguing over! I'll also point out that the 'proof' you want is proof that I own the book you question I might have, not proof that these are WWII battles (which I have already provided). Once again, I'm really trying to help you out and I'd have thought that was clear from my messages above. Obviously not. Goodnight. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Enough said - please let Saberwyn and I sort this out. Goodnight to you as well Medcroft (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
For info, I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to get some extra opinions. Ranger Steve (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I have seconded Ranger Steve's request for outside opinions. I am happy to help work a soultion to this current impasse (and the email is on the way), and am willing to copyedit your next expansion of the article. However, your continuting attitude towards other users comes across to me as antagonistic and uncooperative, despite attempts to help improve the article and show you the benefits of Wikipedia's collaborative mission. At times, I find your interactions with myself and others to be stressful, and I honestly do not know how much longer I can continue to help you. -- saberwyn 11:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the naming issue: while I believe you when you say they are named after amphibious operations, Ranger Steve is correct in asserting that they were named after WWII battles, because that is what the author says on page 148. Although the origins of the individual names are listed on page 228, only some of these indicate that they were amphibious operations, and Average Joe Reader would need prior knowledge or have to go elsewhere to confirm or deny this. Therefore, only the more general name pattern can be reliably sourced with this reference.
As for your email, I am aware of your connection to these vessels, and never intended to disrespect you or that connection. -- saberwyn 07:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallery size - LCT Mk 8[edit]

I trimmed the number of images in the gallery as some seemed to add no further value to description of the articles subject. Manual of style (here ) says picture should be relevant, and captions should "explain their relevance both to the article subject", but I fail to see why a picture of the shore from an LCT tells us anything about an LCT. Subdividing the gallery section by ship is also unecessary. The MoS also says "gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (see for instance the images of the Bismarck here with only illustrative images against points raised in the text present in the article itself GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this gallery is not in line with the MOS. A Commons gallery is the more appropriate place, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British)[edit]

I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings. My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively. I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about. I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval. Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it. My public e-mail address is Medcroft (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page, but I'll repeat here that your experience will be very useful with the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll second that; your willingness to engage constructively is greatly appreciated. It can sometimes take a while to appreciate that Wikipedia runs the way it does because that's what's been proved to work over time, and while personal experience and expertise have their place, what we really need are verifiable reliable sources. This is a non-negotiable facet of Wikipedia policy, but one that unfortunately some editors see as challenging their knowledge and even their integrity. Please don't feel this is the case; although as individuals we might have no problem with assertions you make from personal knowledge, Wikipedia policy means that unless they're sourced the encyclopedia can't accept them. As I'm sure you're well aware of, the best way to go is to provide sources for direct quotations, controversial information or anything likely to be challenged (from the Good Article assessment criteria), take nothing personally, and believe the note at the bottom of every edit window which says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
On a related note, I've changed File:HMAV Arezzo (L 4128).jpg back to Steve's straightened version (based on the horizon, not the vessel). It's a great photo but the license is lacking some information at the moment; you've stated you are the author, so is it possible for you to release the image under one of Wikipedia's free content licenses (it would basically mean that although you no longer control the use of the image, you retain the right to be attributed as its creator). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HMAV Arezzo (L 4128).jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:HMAV Arezzo (L 4128).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)