User talk:AMDC

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; Rod talk 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery
Hi, Some months ago you added really useful stuff on history to Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery with an edit summary including "derived from the sources set out in 'Further Reading' section" - would it be possible to indicate which bits came from which book using Inline citation as I'm thinking about trying to get this article to GA status & it is sure to be challenged on the lack of citations. Thanks for any help.&mdash; Rod talk 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SM U-53
Thank you for your recent edit updating the disposal date. Please provide a source citation for the more recent published research you mentioned in the edit summary. I can assist you with the format if you like. Thewellman (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

SM U-53
The source is given in new footnotes in the amendments - principally Dodson and Cant - footnote 15 in this case.
 * Thank you. Sorry I missed the changed location. Thewellman (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Easily done!

SM UB-122 et al
Thanks for the updates - this new book seems interesting and useful and I will get a copy. In the meantime, I am a little bit puzzled by "Probably connected with the wholly erroneous account given of her fate in Gröner 1991, page 29." I don't have this volume of Gröner, but when the article earlier cited him regarding the sub's fate it was to support "broken up in 1921" (that was deleted by an IP in May this year who opted for the Hoo sandbank on the strength of the 2013 Daily Telegraph article). That referencing for scrapping had been there from the beginning of the article in 2013 (only with a change from 1985ed to 1991ed Gröner along the way).

What does intrigue me is that the Telegraph article reports research by a English Heritage team working from an initial position that the Hoo wreck is one of U-122, U-123 or UB-122, and getting to UB-122 by elimination. I wonder where that list of three originated? And now I see that the co-author of the new book is also from English Heritage.

Lastly, we are left with a UB-122 text saying the Hoo wreck is "one of UB-144, UB-145 or UB-150", whereas their individual articles say that the remains of all three are there. Perhaps I'm missing something here? Davidships (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC) (prefer any response here rather than on my page if that's OK)

REPLY BY AMDC

Gröner states that UB-122 "ran aground off the East Coast of Britain on the way to being broken up, 1921", which he gives as the fate of a number of U-Boats, NONE of which actually ended up this way (others include those scuttled in the English Channel in June/July 1921). It looks like it was his default comment for boats whose fate was unknown to him - or became that way.

There are indeed three wrecks, but only the alleged UB-122 is in tolerable condition, and has been the focus for most guesses as to its identity. The Dodson/Cant book has a map showing them all.

The original English Heritage work was carried out before the archival work done by Dodson/Cant on hitherto-unconsulted Admiralty records - in the Hydrographic Office and the Naval Historical Branch - showed that Gröner's "East Coast wreck" list (which included U-122, U-123 and UB-122) was fiction. UB-144/145/150 are all specified as dumped in the Medway by the Admiralty Sales Register, which always states where a vessel sold for scrap was not actually broken up: Dodson/Cant uses it for most of the fate-corrections that I input yesterday. 
 * Thanks AMDC. That's vey helpful - and a preview of the book which should arrive here in a day or so. Davidships (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [4 of ~, rather than -, works!]

Still learning the technicalities! As you may have have seen, your queries have prompted me to add some more detail to the UB-122, 144, 145 and 150 pages, which hopefully makes the situation clearer to the uninitiated. (AMDC (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * SM U-112
 * added links pointing to Rochester and Pembroke
 * SM U-100
 * added a link pointing to Blyth
 * SM U-118
 * added a link pointing to Brest
 * SM U-22 (Germany)
 * added a link pointing to Blyth
 * SM U-90
 * added a link pointing to Pembroke

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - still a bit of a novice when it comes to the technicalities of Wikipedia! 
 * Don't sorry about it! It's just a question of getting into  little routines.  For example, on these "disambiguation" link messages, taking the first example "Rochester" you added this link Rochester, whereas the real target is Rochester, Kent; however as you don't want to repeat the word Kent in the sentence the best way to do it is Rochester which will also take the reader to the right place (look at this in Edit mode to see how it is constructed).  The vertical stroke "|", together with the tilde "~", are two of the most useful characters for a WP editor.  Have a go at the other examples and I'll look by again tomorrow. And the routine: I (almost) always check links either in preview or after publishing to be sure that they lead where I intended them to. Davidships (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Something for tomorrow, methinks .... (AMDC (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for October 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SM U-112, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochester.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Pennant numbers
I appreciate that you added all the pennant numbers for Vindictive, but can you add a source in the infobox? And do much the same for any other pennant numbers that you add so the articles can retain their existing ratings. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Will do tomorrow: they are from standard reference works! AMDC (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done! AMDC (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While it probably doesn't matter, the age of those sources is a little concerning. FYI there's a more recent reference: Warlow Ben and Steve Bush. 2021. Pendant Numbers of the Royal Navy : A Record of the Allocation of Pendant Numbers to the Royal Navy Warships and Auxiliaries. Barnsley South Yorkshire: Seaforth Publishing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of it, but don't have a copy - but it and the sources I've cited are simply copying from the official Pennant Lists - so the original source is identical. AMDC (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Königsberg
Hey AMDC, does Huxmann cover all of the material you added or just the first sentence? If he covers all of it, the citation should be at the end of the paragraph. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * All the material - will move it that is the Wikipedia convention. In my own main discipline, one normally put it at the end of the first sentence of a paragraph, where the reference covers the whole paragraph. AMDC (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting, what's your field? Also, do you happen to have the page numbers for the footnote? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm an Egyptologist, who has a sideline in naval history. The whole book is on the 'posthumous' fate of the ship, and the paragraph summarises its overall content, so no page numbers required in this case. AMDC (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)