User talk:Benea/archive11

Possibly unfree File:HMS Sunfish-1-.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Sunfish-1-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Speedy_(1782)/archive2

I responded to all but one; I haven't seen "Tons" capitalized but I'm not sure. Feel free to revert any of my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike has one more question there. Also see Glitchcraft's question in the FAC and my response; my instinct is that Glitchcraft will be okay with the way you've done it, if it's your position that those references are more commonly referred to by the primary (or more prestigious) author's name. Otherwise, I'll be happy to make the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll like this. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Too kind! I'm delighted this article has attracted such attention, and flattered people have enjoyed it. The references are the way I've always done them, and I'd be happy to see them left as they are, as my thoughts match your position. Benea (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Captain Daniel Roberts

Thank you for editing my article. How did you come to find it? Sirswindon (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Philemon Pownoll

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

article about the peterell and some other things

Hello Benea. Thank you very much for correcting my schedule of the battle of Toulon 1744, which was really strange. I saw that you have made some interesting changes here. As the ship was captured by the spaniards and later recaptured by the british... I think that an article relating these feats of arms would be very interesting, don't you agree? By the way, I have created this article, but i can't find any reference on the "class" of the ship HMS Admiral Pasley, give it a look if you want. Greetings.Pietje96 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Its an interesting article. Admiral Palsey was not a warship of the Royal Navy, but a hired merchant brig. She was hired by the Navy Board at a regular monthly rate to carry despatches on 18 July. Common practice was for the civilian master and crew to be hired along with the ship, and an officer usually of the rank of Lieutenant (in this case this is our Charles Nevin) assigned to the ship for the duration of her period of hire. Details are scant on small ships like these that were never formally commissioned into the navy, but you may be interested to know she measured 204 83/94 bm, and had previously been an ex-French vessel.

I don't tend to add to the proliferation of articles on small single-ship actions, and the loss and recapture of Peterel can't even count as one of those really. The details are that the Peterel failed to outrun a superior force and surrendered without a shot, but the following day a larger British squadron put the Spanish to flight, and the Spanish abandoned her in their hurry to escape. In neither instance was a shot even fired. Benea (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Benea. Thanks for the info. I had deduced that "the Pasley" was a ship of war because of this link: http://www.royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=C1799_-_1800 , where the HMS abbreviation can be seen. 1800. Dec. 10. HMS Admiral Pasley captured by Spanish gun-vessels. Greetings!

DYK for John Bastard (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Europa (1765)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sultanhisar disamn page

Hi! You have deleted the wikilink TCG Sultanhisar-(III) (P-111) in the Sultanhisar disamb page. Do you have a reason for that? If not, please revert to initial version. CeeGee (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ceegee. At the moment there is a general link to the new shiplist page which lists all three ships named Sultanhisar, at TCG Sultanhisar. You'll find TCG Sultanhisar (P-111) there, as well as the earlier destroyer. It's common practice to only use a general link to a shiplist page and not list all the ships there. For example see New York (disambiguation) and how ships named USS New York are handled. This prevents unnecessary repetition, and allows the set index pages to have more links and detail than are allowed on disambiguation pages. By the way extraneous links are discouraged in disambiguation pages, hence my removal of many of them from Sultanhisar (disambiguation). Set index pages, like the TCG Sultanhisar can have more links and information, another reason not to attempt to use a disambiguation page like Sultanhisar (disambiguation) as a shiplist page. Benea (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks a lot for the detailed explaination. I am convinced now. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791)

Hello! Your submission of Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal was an aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy that served in the Second World War. Designed in 1934 to fit the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty, she was built by Cammell Laird and Company, Ltd. at Birkenhead, England, and completed in November 1938. Her design differed from previous aircraft carriers. Ark Royal was the first ship on which the hangars and flight deck were an integral part of the hull, instead of an add-on or part of the superstructure. Designed to carry a large number of aircraft, she had two hangar deck levels. She served during a period that first saw the extensive use of naval air power; a number of carrier tactics were developed and refined aboard Ark Royal. She served in some of the most active naval theatres of the Second World War, including operations off Norway, the search for the German battleship Bismarck, and the Malta Convoys. She was torpedoed on 13 November 1941 and sank the following day. Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries; investigators were keen to know how the carrier was lost, given there were efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar. Several design flaws were discovered during the investigation and were rectified in new British carriers. (more...)

Cesare Rossarol

Hi User Benea, this is just to let you know that the article in question is now astronomically better than before, thanks to your intervention. I began to worry if the name shoulda been italicized. Thank you once again, specially for the copy-ed ! Krenakarore (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, just needed a few tweaks to bring it up to scratch. An interesting article all round! Benea (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's another article needing your attention too Benea. Bredenhof, anytime ! It's nice to see how you deal with this subject. Thanks for showing me how to make it better. Krenakarore (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Johnstone (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Swiftsure class submarine

"this will give you the effect I think you're looking for" - Yes it will, thanks! I was unsure how to achieve that. Best regards Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick question. I just checked the page Upholder/Victoria class submarine and right at the beginning of the opening paragraph are the words "Bold text". Obviously it shouldn't be there but I can't seem to remove it. Any ideas? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, a handy little cheat since the article titles don't allow for any normal formatting instructions that you can use in article space. The problem on Upholder/Victoria was in the arrangement of your templates, it should be fixed now. Best, Benea (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and for showing me where the problem is. There are still many areas of wikipedia that are quite new to me. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Inglis (d. 1833)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for French ship Censeur (1782)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for for contribution on my articles. I have a number of them coming up and would welcome any assists. Pfifer11 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Cochrane, 8th Earl of Dundonald

The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

CAP Group PLC

I see that you have contributed to the article that is titled CAP Scientific. My belief is that the article should be rewritten as CAP Group PLC. My understanding is that CAP Group had at least three major business units, of which CAP Scientific was only one; I think one of the other business units did software in support of banking and investment companies; I do not know what the other one was. I think that the authors of the article did not understand the relationship between CAP Scientific and CAP Group. As CAP Group PLC was listed on the London Stock Exchange, there must be annual reports from the 1980s somewhere. Someone who had access to these could then rewrite the article so that it presents a proper description of this 1980s British company.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A very minor contribution, just disambiguating which HMS Sheffield was meant. My expertise in companies is slight, and tends to lie in older ones than CAP. If the situation as you say is correct, then I'd support a rewrite along the lines you suggest, but I'm afraid I could probably add little to it. Benea (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

the peterel frigoop

Good evening Sir. Your changes are always really impressive. But! Reading the construction section of HMS Peterel, of which i have expanded the capture section, it seems that after 1794 she carried 32 guns, and thus, she must have been rated as a fifth rate 32-gun frigate, was she really rebuilt with 32 guns? I mean.. an sloop can hardly be re-armed with 32 guns if it's not rebuilt. According to the spanish, when they captured her she carried 26 guns, but i guess she could have been pierced for 32 as your reliable source says. What do you think? Pietje96 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

nevermind, i totally misunderstood the section!Pietje96 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see there's not a problem any more, was it the infobox that was the cause? The carronades a ship carried weren't generally included in the ship's rated armament, but as they become more and more popular, they began to make up the primary battery of the smaller ships like the sloops and brigs, and ships which had previously carried long guns were rearmed to take carronades in their place. The carronades were included in the rated armament but only when they replaced long guns in the same place. This was the case with the Pylades class, including Peterel. Including all the carronades she would have been carrying 24 guns after her rearmament, though as explained, her rating would have remained unchanged. 32 guns would have required a total rebuild as you say, and would put her straight through the sixth rates and into the light fifth rate category. As far as I know, no ship ever underwent such a radical change. Benea (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I must say these sloops arose my curiosity, and that i would like to see the plans of them. In my opinion, the Cormorant/Pylades class 20-gun sloops like the Peterel could perfectly have been rated as sixth rate ships, despite having been built as 16-gun sloops. For instance, when the Peterel was re-armed had the same guns, size and tonnage of the sixth rates, she was only 2 meters smaller than the Porcupine class post ships of the RN! Did Earl Spencer improve these sloops like he did with Frigates, back in the 1790's? I'm sure the Peterel was a Post ship. By the way, I've uploaded a painting where it can see the stern of HMS Lynx, a Cormorant class 16-gun sloop. :) Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct as far as the large sloops with quarterdecks go. The Cormorant class design (originally introduced in 1793) was revived in 1805-6, and the ships of this later batch, initially classed as 18-gun sloops, were reclassified by the Admiralty as 20-gun sixth rates in 1810-12, and those which survived long enough, were again reclassified, this time as 24 or 26-gun sixth rates, in February 1817. This did not necessarily reflect a heavier armament in terms of number of guns per se, but developing attitudes in the Admiralty to the rating system. Taking the Cormorants for example, the first batch were rated as 16-gun sloops, carrying 16 6-pdrs and 12 1/2 pdr swivel guns. The 6-pdrs made up her rated armament. They are later rearmed with 16 24- (or 32-)pdr carronades, 6 12pdr carronades, and 2 12pdr carronades, so they are actually carrying 24 guns of various calibres, but they are only rerated to 18-gun sloops. The 1805-6 batch start out as 18-gun sloops with roughly the same armament, and some with an extra pair of 6-pdrs, an armament which does not change, despite this some go from being rated as 18 guns to be rated as 26 guns! The Talbot class undergo a similar experience, starting out as 18-guns and therefore being in the unrated sloop category, then rated as 20-guns and in the sixth rate post ship category, with the sole survivor by 1817 being rated as 28 guns!

There was a general move towards larger and more heavily armed ships, the rise of the carronade reflected the tempting ability to make small ships punch well above their weight, and this is reflected in the development of sloops and brigs, as well as in frigates and ships of the line.

Peterel never was a post ship, her commanders were all 'Commanders' as opposed to 'Captains' but it reflected the Admiralty regulations concerning the rating system rather than the comparative physical characteristics of the vessels officers of different ranks could command. Simply by the expedient of rerating, rather than rearming, the Admiralty could move ships in and out of categories. I like the image of Lynx by the way! Best, Benea (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about DYK reviews

I've indirectly mentioned a series of reviews you did at DYK, as I'm currently trying to understand how doing reciprocal reviews works. I thought it was one review (of a whole nomination) for each nomination you do, but then I noticed you cited a review of La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin twice at DYK. I had thought that this would count a a single review, but might be wrong. Anyway, I've raised the matter at WT:DYK, only mentioning it indirectly (I named the article), but thought I should let you know. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If it gets worked out let me know. I was following someone else's precedent, though I can't remember whose. Given that I had to review the article twice to make sure the basics hadn't changed it seemed to be within the spirit of the guideline. Benea (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got this reply: [1]. As you say, it was precedent, and that's reasonable. I'll try and get the relevant wording tightened up to make this clearer, though I agree with you that some reviews take time, though as there is no way of knowing that until you've started to review a hook, that's unavoidable really. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov/GA1

I've replied to most of the concerns. Could you please look over them? Buggie111 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John MacBride (Royal Navy officer)

The article John MacBride (Royal Navy officer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John MacBride (Royal Navy officer) for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Benea (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Sainfoin (F183)

Hi, you expanded the HMS Sainfoin (F183) article. I'll be coming to this one before long in the Empire C ships series. Would you be so kind as to use inline references for the information you added so far, as that will make expansion a lot easier for me. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see user Sturmvogel has already done so, as per my reply below my copy of Colledge is in transit at the moment, but please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Benea (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Prince William (1780)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am thrilled that my suggestion to place your hook on DYK the same day as the Royal Wedding helped garner 9,200 views on the HMS Prince William page. Accordingly, I have added it to DYKSTATS. An interesting side effect of the way the hook was written is that the William IV of the United Kingdom page got 30,700 views (it only got 9,000 the day before). While Monarchy of the United Kingdom got 66,100 views (it only got 15,600 the day before), I don't think we can attribute the 50,500 view increase to just DYK. ;) Congratulations on a successful DYK entry! OCNative (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• All credit to you for spotting the connection, I confess I had completely missed it, pure chance that I happened to write the article at the right time. Well done indeed, keep looking out for these links! Best, Benea (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Salusbury Pryce Humphreys

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice is sought

Benea, your advice is sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Pennant_numbers, on whether the pennant number of a British warship is part of her name. Thanks. Shem (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that was in any way helpful. I've just realised you've added some shiplist pages to the page. More than happy to help with them, but my copy of Colledge is in transit, so it might be a day or two. Best, Benea (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Goodall

The DYK project (nominate) 18:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cedric Holland

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov

Hello! Your submission of Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpinningSpark 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Tull, page 665. There does not seem to be a page 665. But in any case what I am looking for is the book and page which says he kept chickens, then I can pass it. By the way, I also don't like your page range style like pages 11-2 for pages 11-12. I'm sure there is something in the guidelines against doing that but I couldn't say where off the top of my head. A lot of technical books I deal with actually number pages eg 4-2 meaning chapter 4 page 2 which makes it very confusing. SpinningSpark 19:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you follow this link? [2] Benea (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I guess I was looking at yet another botched google scan. SpinningSpark 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Leslie-Melville, 7th Earl of Leven

this redirects to 9th Earl which is wrong. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking a redirect so it creates an empty page is more wrong. You are welcome to chose a better target for the redirect. I have not looked into the situation in any detail, but I'd suggest the Earl of Leven article, until an article on this individual is created. Benea (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

SS Robin Doncaster

Hi, would you run your eyes over the SS Robin Doncaster article. I've a feeling this could get to GA or higher. On the description side of things, there is a lot more written at the source than has been put into the article so far. I'm not sure exactly what is and isn't worth including. Maybe you'd like to expand the section a bit? I've attempted to write this one in American English, so any corrections would be appreciated if you find an error. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it looks pretty good at first glance, probably GA worthy. In terms of sentence flow and structure there is probably more to be done before it hits higher levels. I think you're right to be aware of the danger of putting every last detail in. I've seen articles rendered virtually unreadable with that approach. I'll have a look in due course. Benea (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian submarine

Hi Benea, Sorry about my move of that sub. I realised right after I'd done it that it was a mistake but although I tried I couldn't revert my move. Thanks for doing it. Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, happy to help. Benea (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Type U 158 U-boats

Thanks for expanding those articles. I wasn't able to find any reliable information about those boats, so I nominated them for deletion. Obviously this is a much more desirable outcome. --FJS15 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the thing about Uboat.net is that it is mainly a directory of information, only includes the boats which were active in the wars, and is weak on the overall development of the types. Better to go to print sources, but information about these boats is admittedly quite hard to find even so. Let me know if there are any similar cases you find and I'd be happy to give them a look. Benea (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am well rested after a week off ;-) --FJS15 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

James Walker (Royal Navy officer) GA

Hi Benea, I've started the GA review for James Walker (Royal Navy officer). The review page is here: Talk:James Walker (Royal Navy officer)/GA1. Please take a look and respond when you get a chance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Shiplist pages

Benea, are you still happy for me to drop suggestions into [[User:Benea/Shiplist pages]? I occasionally come across ones that need doing but don't have Colledge to do it myself. Shem (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes absolutely! I don't have my Colledge with me at the moment unfortunately, but when I do I will fill them in, as well as adding a few more I've come across as well. Best, Benea (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - and it's great to have you back. Shem (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, its good to be back! Benea (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The dDead

I suppose you know you've got to add some references to critical works., to show that this particular poem has received attention. Otherwise, as it's mostly the text, the content can be merged and the text belongs on wikisource. (obviously no copyright problems, it was written in 1914.) DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When I prodded it a few days ago, it was merely a highschool-standard short biography of Brooke. It has been developed since then to actually include the poem. I've no strong opinions on what happens to it, applying the guidelines an upload to wikisource is best, but I don't intend to actually press for this (I'd support it if it was proposed), nor to examine the critical studies of it, poetry is not my field. Perhaps the creator will continue to develop it. Benea (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Knowles (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Berkeley (Royal Navy officer)

Calmer Waters 12:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Flagmen of Lowestoft

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of Edits at HMCS Uganda

Thank-you for your attempt at a considerate note expressing concern that I mistakenly made inappropriate changes to HMS and HMCS Uganda. You assert that I might be unaware that I should note why the changes were made. I find this statement curious, as I did just that at the main changes I made. I guess I forgot to include the same statement of justification at the related redirect page. However, considering you reverted both edited pages, your behaviour would appear to have been intentionally dismissive, derisive, arrogant, and confrontational. I have every certainty, despite your extensive edit history, that this was completely unintentional. You might also take notice of the fact that you did not note why you presumed to just revert the pages, violating the very justification you used to dismiss my changes. Your behaviour to then send me a polite note also gives the air of pretense, since my a stated justification for the edits which you missed was that given the relatively short period of time HMS Uganda was British, compared to the extended period of time HMCS Uganda/Quebec was Canadian, not to mention that her heaviest combat was Canadian, that making HMCS Uganda redirect to HMS Uganda was highly offensive and should be switched. This would be the case no matter which two nations commissioned any ship. It is particularly problematic when it contains strident echos of the history of dismissive and condescending behaviour toward colonials by the home nation. Of course, having looked at your edit history, I see that you are quite a naval Anglophile. You should certainly be forgiven for having so easily defaulted to the behaviour of those, in the history of which, you have so clearly immersed yourself. In the spirit of civil and respectful discourse in which your note to me was proffered, and this response is offered, I would respectfully suggest that for any similar instances in the future, you respond by first sending the note querying the edit, rather than revert it. Particularly in cases where the general content has been barely altered and no reasonable assertion of damage to the information offered on the topic can be made. I trust, that in the future, I would be allowed to make such a reasonable change to these two articles without risk of summary rejection by yourself, or perhaps other, less considerate editors, who might wish to set themselves up as arbiters of orthodoxy as often happens on this site. Reversion is for damage done to articles by vandals, propagandists, self-promoters etc. Reversion is NOT editing. When it is treated as a legitimate tool because one disagrees with an edit, it is offensive and unneccesarily confrontational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.176.149 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-105 (1940)

Thank you for the feedback. I have begun cleanup. It will take time, but the page will eventually be up to GA standards. -cc 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, take all the time you need, I'll be happy to look at it again when you think its ready. Benea (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ducie Island

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Talk:Ducie Island#Additional additional comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weather ships cats

Dear Benea, thanks for picking up the wrong name for the cat "Weather ship" (sic). I should have known better - sorry. Shem (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, should be an easy fix, no trouble at all. Best, Benea (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens again

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers

Sorry about losing your edits. they are still there but I was in the middle of filling in most of the gaps so a lot got swallowed up with my latest efforts. Do please try again I shall stop editting the article from now. When the edit conflict came up I assumed it was the normal save glich that I usually get and didn't check what was going on.

List of aircraft carriers

Sorry about losing your edits. they are still there but I was in the middle of filling in most of the gaps so a lot got swallowed up with my latest efforts. Do please try again I shall stop editting the article from now. When the edit conflict came up I assumed it was the normal save glich that I usually get and didn't check what was going on.Petebutt (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was able to copy and paste most of them back in. I've just been slowly working my way through, fixing up the formatting and adding some missing ships. Benea (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-105 (1940), again

Hello Benea. I've finished my rewrite of German submarine U-105 (1940). I believe it now meets GA standards. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it. Thank you, -cc 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I put the page up for another GA review. --cc 08:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for a bit and completely missed this post. It's looking good, I will run through it with another review in short order. Benea (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the issues you raised. --cc 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --cc 10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:URCHIN badge-1-.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:URCHIN badge-1-.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. A typo caused the img not to display in article. Brad (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Baleine

For HMS Baleine are there any other RN ships that carried the name? Brad (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been away for a bit. I don't have the relevant book with me at the moment, but I'll be able to check by next week. Benea (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Colledge only lists this vessel. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Charles Lydiard a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

DYK for James Macnamara

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Phoenix (N96)

I noticed your improvements to the article and just wanted to say thanks. If you review the talk page, you can see that there are concerns that information on her activity on the China Station is lacking. Would you have any resources to help improve that? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll have a look and see if I can dig anything up. Benea (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the links. The things I do when I'm tired... Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ark royal reef.

Apoliagies in advance if this is the wong place to edit or dicuss this. Benea (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I have done some more digging, hope this helps

Here are some more links

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Metal-firm-s-pound-3-5m-reef-pledge/story-13199015-detail/story.html http://www.motorboatsmonthly.co.uk/news/527513/reef-plan-for-ark-royal http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/Ark-Royal-Reef-project-just-tonic-Bay/story-12921548-detail/story.html http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/Councillor-takes-step-making-Ark-Royal-project/story-12753865-detail/story.html http://www.visiteatstay.com/?p=1738 http://www.britishdiver.co.uk/diving-news.html?ID=72 http://www.bfbs.com/news/uk/ark-royals-future-beneath-waves-48156.html http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2011/07/20/ark-royal-may-be-sunk-to-make-diving-reef-72703-29087638/ http://blog.simplyscuba.com/index.php/2011/06/scuba-divers-bid-to-sink-ark-royal/

according to wiki, This is enough to confim the edit. my edit is not "vandalism" i am just tring to bring the option for the scuttleing to peoples attention

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.214.63 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, I did some looking myself and there appear to be quite a few sources that would meet WP's definition of reliable (i.e. local news reports) that substantiate that there is this effort underway. If you do meet with opposition to an edit, it is usually a good idea to take it to the article's talkpage first, to see what objections other editors have, and how you can address them.

Just a quick update here, I am not sure if this can be included in the links/sources for the Ark Royal page, But i have found a Guardian News report, About the posability of scuttleing her. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/hms-ark-royal-diving-reef?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Aircraft-carrier-sinking-plans-given-pound-3m/story-14219092-detail/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.7.254 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Benea! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedia user, SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Breadalbane

Ben, the article currently at HMS Breadalbane, should, IMO, be at Breadalbane (ship), or something similar. Woudl you care to comment at Talk:HMS Breadalbane? Yours, Shem (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Lechmere

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Admiral John Carter

Why did you remove him from the Royal Navy Officers page? Was he not a royal navy officer? I am sure you are correct but I am just interested to know your reasoning.--ContribUnit (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Royal Navy officers is a parent category for Category:Royal Navy admirals, which you will see that Carter is already in. Category:Royal Navy officers is therefore used for all those who were commissioned officers in the Royal Navy, but never reached flag rank. If an officer did, they are placed in the more descriptive category, Category:Royal Navy admirals, but should otherwise not appear in both. Benea (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Grinder (1809)

Hi Benea, I am delighted to see that you have further info re this vessel. What are your sources for the recapture in 1811, the retention in the Royal Navy, and the disposal in 1832? I hadn't been able to find anything past the London Gazette account of the 1811 recapture. I would love to update the HMS Grinder (1809) article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar question from Viking! Question is on the HMS Grinder (1809) discussion page! Viking1808 (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1798)

Lovely work on HMS Temeraire. Really added some colour and interesting and fascinating detail. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh that was quick, I'd only just posted my rewrite! No problem, it's been a project I've been working on for a little while now, glad you like it! Benea (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Vic Flowers DYK

I've responded to your concerns by putting a replacement hook for the Vic Flowers nom at DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	‎For your excellent new article Thomas Fortescue Kennedy and similar others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you very much! Much appreciated! Benea (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Temeraire (1798)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hello Benea, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Fortescue Kennedy

Thank you for supporting the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SS Mantola (1916)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Benea/archive11! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Thomas Eyles

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Sneyd Clay

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Linzee

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1798) ACR

Hi, Benea, sorry if I needlessly ping your talk page, but I'm not sure if you saw the comments that I left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Temeraire (1798). I'd be happy to support the article for A-class if you can cover off on my points. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no problem at all. I was away for the past few days, but thank you for your comments, and I've done what I can to address them. Best, Benea (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Ship wreck

Why on earth is the template being fazed out? It offers incredibly relevant information about the fate of the ship. Shouldn't that information at least be incorporated into the main ship template? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus in the TFD was that the information should be placed in the article, or if appropriate and not already present, incorporated into the fields of ship infobox begin. Once all the transclusions have been removed, the template will be deleted. Benea (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that imply that new fields should be added to ship infobox begin? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1780)

Hi Benea, I see that you are very protective of your wording. No problem. I will try to avoid stepping on your toes in the future. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Hi there, I understand that at the time Ireland was part of the UK, but it is still a bit misleading. A person who might not know much about this topic they could easily assume that Ireland is still in the UK. Today it is very common for people to refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. The following is only a suggestion; "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line. It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK" I know that it wasn't built in Northern Ireland but the shipyard is still active and it is in Northern Ireland Velvet1346 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The MOS approach to this issue has been outlined on the article talkpage, and as the article currently follows this practice, then there isn't really any grounds to change it. Benea (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about Henry Heathcote

Hi, in the Family and later life section of Henry Heathcote, there's a quote containing "... it is not to much here ...". Is that "to" a transcription error which should simply be corrected to "too", or is that how it appears in the source, calling for a " [sic]"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, the source is grammatically correct, the error is mine, made when transcribing it. Thanks for pointing this out, I've corrected it in the article. Benea (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for checking, and fixing it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Java (18110

Hi Benea, great to see the links to that campaign. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is the linking of stories/articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, writing articles on wikipedia is a two stage effort, one to write the thing and another to go around and make all the relevant links! Benea (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

British colonial Campaigns

Hello.
Feel free to add anything to this template.
It has turned out to be a monumental task & may need to be corrected in terms of places & what campaigns should or should not be put in. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Spear

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Heathcote

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Action of 5 November 1813

Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)