User talk:Jpfoynes

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jpfoynes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Gipsy[edit]

I've reverted your edits to this article as each paragraph needs at least one source. Your article can be used as a source if it was published at a reputable journal, but probably not if you've published it yourself. See WP:V and WP:RS for the policies regarding citations and reliable sources. I'm happy to help you incorporate your additional material provided that these policies can be met.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PRIMARY about using primary sources in wikipedia articles. Further more, you lumped all the sources into one big indigestible mess. They need to be accessible for other readers and should include TNA file numbers, page numbers and/or weblinks. Each paragraph needs to contain cites to the documents supporting each statement or fact. If multiple docs cover all the facts in the paragraph, they can be lumped together at the end of the paragraph. The article on HMS Hardy (1936) might be useful to use as a model for multiple citations within a single paragraph. And please conform to the existing citation formats as this article has to conform to the good article criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm SovalValtos. I noticed that you made a change to an article, HMS Wallaroo (1890), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not use a self published work as a source. Please also use the 'Show preview' facility before saving edits, to help avoiding errors SovalValtos (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Page Creations[edit]

I'm somewhat concerned about the notability of some of your recent page creations, such as SS SNA 8. References such as statistical listings generally are not sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. Also, please format the references if possible; include them in a <ref> </ref> tag and add a "References" section with a {{reflist}} template at the end of the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ship articles[edit]

It's great that you're creating new ship articles. However, these do need to be of a much higher standard that you have been creating. Suggest you look at other ship articles and see how they are structured. All articles should use and infobox ({{Infobox ship begin}}). Suggested structure is lede, construction, history, references. There are plenty of good sources listed at WP:SHIPS/R which are available for use. As for the SS Corsea article, I listed a number of sources at the AfD discussion which are available and useable. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

my sources are

a)TNA ADM 199 files, including air attacks on ships, Nore Command War Diaries, Harwich Salvage Records, East Coast (FN and FS convoy) reports, Minesweeping Records, and Daily Events Summaries, cross-referenced with

b)Walton/Frinton. Clacton and Southend RNLI record books,

c)TNA AIR 27 (RAF Squadron) Ops Records Books in the case of East Coast Stuka activity in November 1940

d)where possible, the "Seekriegsleiting" daily war diaries of the Kriegsmarine Naval Staff.

e)the daily chronology of the Naval-History.net website (an internationally recognised and very accurate and comprehensive source),

f)the HMSO publication on British Merchant Ships Losses (& Damage) 1939-1945.

g)Lloyds Lists for Sunken Merchant and Naval Ships,

h)the online "Wrecksite" (UK Hydrographic Dept), with its accurate accounts, chart positions of sinkings, and lists of fatalities.

i)The Naval-History.net WW2 chronology and associated published narrative--an extremely detailed, accurate and internationally recognised source based on a), f), g) above

j)Where helpful the CWGC Register and Tower Hill Merchant Navy Memorial were also consulted.

k)The Brian Pears "North East Diary 1939-1945" was used to confirm the ownership of ships, and locations and dates of sinking, though this is a secondary source

l) The Rohwer (& Hummelchun) publications and "Seekrieg" website were one of my original sources, but do not add to the above, and contain several errors, caused by not having full access to Royal Navy records.

Without Rohwer, this is 13 official British, 1 official German, and 1 expertly-researched, archive-based publication, all agreeing with each other but disagreeing with Wikipedia.

These sources make it 100% clear (and at least 2 more published secondary sources agree) that the Allied merchant ships sunk in November 1940 were victims of bombs an/or mines dropped from Luftwaffe He 111s, Ju 88s and Stukas in the BARROW DEEP in the Thames Estuary, and not from Norway-based float planes near the OTHER Barrow, which is 250 miles north off Yorkshire. Norway-based aircraft did not fly as far south as the Thames approach, in any case.

I do not rely on "lists" and the Corsea article is an instance of the error just cited. I have researched and written on this subject for 50 years and corrected the Wikipedia articles because they are inaccurate and clearly not based on archival official (e.g.) Admiralty sources. Furthermore, whoever compiled the "Corsea" and other articles was not even up-to-date with online material such as "Wrecksite" and "Naval-History.net". I hope this does not cause offence, but if researchers rely on articles such as the "Corsea" one they will misled. Jpfoynes (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Colchester Garrison. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Army at Colchester[edit]

Hello Jpfoynes,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Army at Colchester for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Colchester Garrison.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you only wanted to add material to the Garrison page but were not allowed to, this looks like deletion of material [[1]]. The material you did add was unsourced. So in fact the reversion of your edits mainly resorted material you had removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of shipwrecks in November 1940, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

advice[edit]

I would stop making edits until you familiarize with our polices, and even then maybe take them to talk pages first. The road you are heading down leads only to bans.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crashed bomber near Tollesbury[edit]

Is this the Handley Page Halifax LW280 mentioned in papers at the Mersea Museum? If not, do you have any other references that can be cited as sources? Recent Runes (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making this inquiry and is it with a view to writing a published book?

A friend of mine has been researching this subject and in view of past difficulties with trying to correct inaccurate Wikipedia articles I am reluctant to cite sources or add material which might be misunderstood and wrongly summarised.

I also have a concern about copyright. Jpfoynes (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]