User talk:Acad Ronin/Archive 4

Diamond Rock
The diamond rock article was using text from 1805 to cite a practice of it being a British stone frigate and sailors being asked to salute it. This was in the immediate aftermath of the battle. It's now 200+ years after the battle and Martinique is French and Diamond Rock also. It no longer appears in the list of UK stone frigates either.

I don't believe it is a good practice to refer to 200+ year old citations as if they were current so a talk page comment was added to point this out. And after a due amount of time, the edit was made. You undid those edits; which I think means wikipedia is again misleading, Rather than get into undo war, let's discuss it in the dimond rock page. Or ideally, let's fix it so it is no longer misleading or has citation on current practice

Regards

Barath s (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Barath s (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Spesutie Island
Thanks for your compliments and tweaking on Spesutie Island. I added a reference to the London Gazette from the HMS Highflyer (1813) article. I had no clue such a wonderful resource was available nor that there is a template for citing it. I will be using it very soon when I finish the article on the Raid on Havre de Grace. I'll let you know when that one is finished and perhaps you could take a look at it too. Regards. —Diiscool (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the London Gazette great? I have found that almost all subsequent accounts of actions originate in the letters published there. Sometimes later authors such as James and Marshall add info, but the core and the bulk is usually in the Gazette. Do let me know re the raid. I would be glad to look it over. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Young Teazer
Great edits on the Young Teazer site. The professional editing on these sites inspires me to continue to contribute to them. It's satisfying to see them polished. If you are interested, it would be great to have you review the Father Le Loutre's War site. --Hantsheroes (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I have briefly looked at the Father...War article. It looks in better shape than the Young Teazer article and some of the ambiguities I noticed would require more specific knowledge than I have. Still, I will return to it on occasion to see what I can do. I too like to see articles improve with editing, additional info being added by different editors, and the like. In my own areas of specialization I am seeing cases where the Wikipedia article is more correct than many of the major sources as research turns up info that had been overlooked before. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I also find the same for my areas of specialization - for the military history of Atlantic Canada (e.g, Father Le Loutre's War, Expulsion of the Acadians, Raid on Dartmouth, Raid on Lunenburg, etc) the best and most comprehensive treatment of these events is actually on wikipedia rather than in any of the major works on histories for atlantic canada or the individual provinces.--Hantsheroes (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by 65.113.118.2
Hi. I poked around a bit at this vandal user talk page with vandalism on ICICI Bank page (see above), but am out of steam for now.

I assume you noticed that the vandalism you reverted by IP 65.113.118.2 on Bank of Hawaii was the second in short order. I'd reverted the first just a day or so prior. But in case you didn't, or in any event, I thought I'd get this on the record here, now.

I couldn't figure what the protocol for "warning" and "final warning" was, at this point.

I'll check back to see/and see if there's more I could/ought to do. Thanks for now. Swliv (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw your earlier reversion. Unfortunately, I don't know the procedure for warning off vandals either. One problem with just an IP address is that it may be a shared computer, for instance, in an internet cafe, in which case warnings are of limited utility. My sense is that when vandals get reverted quickly, they start to get bored. We just have to remain vigilant. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * With another round from a new or restyled editor, and counterpoint, here, and your answer above, I'm going to do a brief link over here from Talk:Bank of Hawaii, maybe someone can help from there. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's some more on the BoH talk page, and here, and and here. A little confusion on IP#s at the moment, but I'll straighten that out. On. FYI. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

re Revolt of the Lash
Just a note to say that I thought this was a nice edit, tightening up and improving the wording. Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article clearly was written by a non-native English speaker. The whole article needs a little more polishing and I will touch it up periodically. There were some sentences I couldn't really touch because I wasn't sure what was meant. In any case, I want to encourage non-Anglos to write for wikipedia so that it gets coverage of topics that otherwise wouldn't hit the radar, and sometimes viewpoints that aren't Anglo. Again, thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Decimal inches
Re your post at User talk:Lightmouse, 23 ft should really be entered manually as 25 ft 7⅝ in (7.20 m) (IMHO). Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for heads up. I didn't know the template could handle fractions. Henceforth I will stick with fractions. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently convert can handle fractions, so 23 ft would produce 23 ft. Where fractions are halves, quarters and eighths only, I prefer the display of ⅛ rather than $1/8$. Where other fractions are used, the frac template has to be used in manual conversions. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I don't anticipate fractions other than the half, quarter or eighth, so that's no problem. Is it possible to ensure that you get a small 1/8 rather than the large 1/8 as output from frac template? Acad Ronin (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just come across this discussion. ½ can be achieved by holding down the Alt Key, entering the number 0189, and then releasing the Alt Key. ¼ is the same method, using 0188. Alt 0190 gives ¾.  Similar method applies to foreign letters such as ö, Ä, ñ, é, ß etc.  If this helps, good! If more detail is needed, just ask. Viking1808 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!
I would be only too glad to drink it, with herring. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pinnance
I have to undo all of my work and leave it for someone else. Thanks for the catch. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

John's Rock
User:Viking1808/Johns Rock This is a new section which might become an article, or its contents might be fitted into notes on HMS Belette. The text in Danish was supplied by one of the marine archeologists from Frederickshavn who are searching for the wreck. Viking1808 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You will see Johns Rock is now in article space. On Belette, was the convoy heading towards Russia, or leaving the Baltic for the wider world?  It might help understand what happened.  Also, is there any indication of wind direction, or weather? Viking1808 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had always assumed that the convoy had left Russia heading for the UK, but there is nothing in the term "Russian ships" to support that assumption. I will check my Hepper later and see if there is anything more precise there.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, Belette appears to have been sailing towards Gothenburg, according to an item on the Danish Naval History Web. I don't know the source of this item, but I suspect it was Hepper, based on the court martial, and a report in the Naval Chronicle, which I can't access.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked in Hepper and he is the source for the statement that Belette was heading for Gothenburg, though from the wording in the Danish Naval History web, I suspect that both are getting this from the courtmartial, via the Naval Chronicle. More interestingly, could the Laeso Rende lighthouse be on the shoals and perhaps on the actual location of Johns Rock? That would be consistent with the later reports of a lighthouse on the reef. There is another reef, ending in an island, more to the north of Laeso, but it doesn't have a lighthouse, as far as I can see. What is strange is that Belette was that far west when it would be more logical to head for Gothenburg by sailing to the east of Laeso, not west. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * if the wind served!! with a northerly wind the direct route to Gothenburg roads seems not to be possible. See the New Seamen's Guide and Coasters Companion 1809 text. Viking1808 (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lolland and Belette
User:Viking1808/Lolland and Belette There is only one mention of Belette in Wandell's Søkrigen, the appropriate pages having been sent to me by the five Danish marine archeologists. Have a look at the linked page above, and use anything that looks good. Viking1808 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * hi Acad - "By 1812 she was in the Baltic.[1] Danish records suggest that she was there already by the summer of 1811" I have just added to the bibliography of HMS Belette, the two danish books Topsøe and Wandell, plus a reference to Wandell that did not carry over to your recent edits. On a matter of emphasis, Egersund is not strictly in the Baltic, but still in the North Sea just some 35 miles south of Stavanger.  Could Belete still be on North Sea Station for this abortive raid? I leave it to you! Viking1808 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, Check out the HMS Belette (1806) article now. I have amended it to correct the geography and have found additional info re the fight at Egersund in the form of the names of the two British ships that were accompanying Belette. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great. Have you looked at the Google map for Egersund? A beautifully twisted passage past Egersund from West or from South!  Viking1808 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just found the date of the attack and have added it. At your suggestion I looked at the map for Egersund sound. I wonder which of all the skerries was the one the Danes hid behind? On a side note, I think we are accumulating enough info for you to do an articles on H.P. Holm, and another on the Loland. What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never cease to wonder how different approaches to the same subject have a wonderful synergism! I will be off Wiki until 14 November, and will start looking at new articles then. I have some info on HMS Quebec (1781) and her exploits in early 1808 that I want to get down.  Then H P Holm will be easy, and LOLLAND (two Ls in the middle) will follow.  Viking1808 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Viking1808/Hans Peter Holm (1772) is now ready for your comments. I do not have a picture of him (in digital form). As his grandson had the same name, I have tried a section Four Generations to disambiguate (what a word) - the final Wiki title should probably be Hans Peter Holm (1772 - 1812) unless you have a better suggestion. Viking1808 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that the link in the article Naval Artistis in English and well worth reading. I have sent an email to the g'g'g'g'daughter in America whose address is given, for her interest and in hopes of deeper comment.  Viking1808 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)
I read you post. I will reply in more detail within 24 hours. I have to trundle of and do something in the real word now. -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I would have got back to you before but I had assumed that Johnbod had reverted my edit (I had not looked at the article) and so the need for a prompt reply had gone.


 * I reason why Bibliography and Source are not good names is mentioned in WP:LAYOUT (confusing in a lot of articles). The other reason is that Bibliography implies books and not other types of documents, including web pages. The fact that you say "The citations usually include things like the London Gazette that could be in the bibliography", Well yes and no, personally I think that having an alphabetically sorted list out ways the clutter (Particularly if someone is printing a hard copy), and from an editors point of view it may discourage them from adding web articles and journals articles to a section called Bibliography. Also the citation guideline recommends against mixing short and long citations, and I think there are big advantages to short citations. For example see Sir James Pulteney, 7th Baronet before and after my edits to that page. The text with embedded LondonGazette citations was next to impossible to read in edit mode. In that case I choose to place them into a reference list, but generally I think it better to use short citations, because the results mean we have our cake and can eat it. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like what you did with the London Gazettes in terms of getting them out of the text. I also take your point of "Bibliography" being too restrictive a term when some sources are journal articles, web pages, and the like. However, I would still favour separating Notes, Citations and References. The way you did the Pulteney article meant that references were in citation order and not in alpha order and I would still prefer to keep the references in alpha order. I also believe in keeping true notes separate, especially as they may require citations themselves. Then the issue becomes, do we have three rubrics all at the == level, or one rubric at that level, and three sub-rubrics, and if so, what is the name of the overall rubric? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Battle of Berlin for possible solution that is used in a number of other articles. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

NMM
Saw your note on my user subpage. I should probably apologise that I have not been at all hands-on with this project over the last several months, I have been very much sidetracked by running the Wikimedia fundraiser in the UK. I certainly appreciate your efforts and I'm sure the NMM do to. I'll be having a meeting with them early in the new year and will be looking at how to involve more people and make it easier to participate at that stage... Regards, The Land (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Cambrian (1797)
Hello Acad, Thanks for your contributions to HMS Cambrian (1797), without which the article would be a mere stub. --Ykraps (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Additions to featured articles
Acad, can I ask you to please be very careful what you add to featured articles like HMS Speedy (1782). These articles adopt a summary style for a good reason, and no attempt is made to list the details of every capture or encounter with ships that occurred in her career, and which there are sources for. As you are of course aware, there are often huge numbers of these in records like the London Gazette. The use of primary sources is also discouraged, and instead of using the LG articles directly, the article instead uses James' work, and the commentary that it contains. I am aware that you like to list these encounters in fairly exhaustive detail (viz HMS Cambrian (1797)) but I would ask you not to approach articles of these levels in the same way. I also strongly dislike the approach of many small paragraphs, and deliberately avoid this to aid the flow of reading. Benea (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Benea, 1) I take your point about the summary style for featured articles. That said, the listing of individual captures can give a sense of the economic war that was a large part of the era. Sloops such as Speedy spent much of their time capturing enemy commerce, without a shot being fired. They also tried to capture commerce raiders. Through the prize system the captains and crews even of Royal Navy vessels were on commission, and that clearly was a part of their motivation. All that comes through the details. The focus on headline events distorts the mundane reality. That said, I agree that mentioning every convoy is probably overkill, though that too was a large part of the reality. 2) The London Gazette, as a newspaper, is a secondary source. The primary sources are the logbooks and the original letter. James and Marshall are frequently tertiary sources. When one can go to the secondary documents that James or Marshall are using that would seem to add to verifiability. 3) I prefer shorter paragraphs that separate separate ideas, issues, or events. I have also noticed that writers for the general public such as reporters and essayists prefer shorter paragraphs. These professional writers and their editors too seem to feel that shorter paragraphs aid readability. Clearly, your mileage varies. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Quebec (1781)
Hi Acad - another new ship article that might interest you. HMS Quebec (1781). It started as an adjunct to HMS Falcon and to the Battle of Zealand Point, but grew and grew! Viking1808 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lolland Notes
User:Viking1808/Lolland

Hi Acad, I am a little punch drunk from reading too much danish and norwegian, but I think we now have most of the story of the Lolland. Norway's story continues after 1814 with fights against the Swedes and attempts to run food convoys. The notes on the above User Page still need bashing into shape, and anything that you have in English. Much can be discarded - uninteresting officers - Please pick out what you need and see what you can make of it. Viking1808 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Viking, As you can see, I have converted your notes into an article. Why don't you check it over and when it is good to go post it. I would suggest that you pull out the stuff after the categories, i.e., from Captains on, and save it elsewhere. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Acad, Thanks for the constructive edits on HDMS Lolland. I have changed a few to emphasise Lolland, rather than the source article, and checked a few facts. We make a good team. HDMS Lolland (1810) is now live. Viking1808 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Viking, the article looks good. I like that your willingness and ability to translate Danish and Norwegian gives the English language article an input that otherwise would be lacking. Makes for a more complete article and reduces the Anglo bias to Wikipedia. I look forward to collaborating on some more articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Acad - see my note on the Lolland talk page. I am beginning to get thoughts together for HDMS Langeland, although she has not featured in much action that I can see. 1810 she was up north for certain.  Do you have anything?  Regards ( or med venlig Hilsen) Viking1808 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, I have incorporated some of this in the articles on Lolland, Brev Drageren, and Algerine. As for Langeland, there are going to be vessels that have fairly dull careers. That means the article will never be more than stub-sized, but so be it. Even then, there may still be an interesting nugget there. I haven't seen anything on Langeland, but then I haven't looked. Still, I doubt that there is anything in that we have over several ship articles and the article on the Gunboat War, covered almost every engagement of the war, and she hasn't shown up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Langeland and Lougen
Hi Acad HDMS Langeland (1808) is now launched.

There is also a new section in HDMS Lougen (1805) which you may have seen already. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, So, Langeland turned out to have a couple of interesting anecdotes. If you google "Nightingale Snake Gallant Hammerfest", yoo will find the following book: Kiær, Anders Nicolai, Johan Vibe, Amund Helland, and Boye Strøm (1906) Norges land og folk: Finmarkens amt (H. Aschehoug & Co.), which has some discussion on p.16, unfortunately in Norwegian, of the events at Hammerfest. There may be something to add from there. I have checked the London Gazette, and so far have nothing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I have now looked at the reference - which I may translate later - but it is relevant to us only with reference to the attack on Hammerfest in 1809, with lots of captains names. Briefly Hammerfest battery ran out of ammunition after half an hour - a "Parlimentaire" went on board from the town and it was agreed no harm to any citizen provided resistance stopped - then the British plundered everything, including the church. Battery rebuilt in 1810.

Caveat: The Danish Naval Museum card for Valkyrien has her launched in Bergen in August 1810, two weeks after she is reported at Hammerfest with Lougen!! I have a query out on Balsved's (Danish) Discussion Forum to see what comes of this.


 * A different source has Valkyrien launched on 10 March 1810 - which fits the other known facts! Viking1808 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On Sailing Navies (English language) forum there is a thread started by a Russian "Vladimir" with a story of a Russian ship captured then retaken and escaped to Kola. So far, no real link to our two ships.

Finally, there is a reference in Pomor trade to the Finnmark Squadron (that did not come from me) Keep digging Viking1808 (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to try and link the Pomor trade into the Anglo-Russian War (1807-1812) story and some of the vessels. Can we place Langeland into a footnote on the Pomor trade article? I.e., was she lead vessel/part of the Finnsmark Squadron? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just glanced at the "Vladimir" thread. You should pass on the info that HDMS Najaden (1796) is probably the English ship he is looking for. It's boats conducted the raid on Kola. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi acad - we just got into an "editing conflict" on pomor trade a few minutes ago, so I came out. I was going to add another note listing the two brigs and three newly built gunships (schooners with cannon) by name after "Finnmark Squadron".

and yet again, another potential article - our J N Müller met Nelson after the former struck at Copenhagen. He (Müller)was not impressed by the small man, but a flag lieutenant told Müller that the British had never had such a hot reception.(with suitable references)

I will concoct a reply to Vladimir as you suggest.Viking1808 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, I was just on Pomor trade so could have been me, or maybe not. Re Vladimir - Nayaden wasn't it. It could have been HMS Alexandria (1806). She was on the Lieth station from about 1810 to 1813+. In 1811 she captured several Russian vessels and in 1813 tried to engage the USS President (1800) near Archangel. I am also trying to find out more about HMS Snake (1797) to see if she could have been in the area in 1810. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found the following: on 31 August 1810, HMS Gallant (1804) captured the St. Peder. The date is the right time for the Evlus 2 incident, and Gallant apparently was in the area according to your Lougen/Langeland info. Will continue to look. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am also still digging - two unnamed British frigates appeared off Hammerfest later in 1810 but harbour was well fortified by then!! (ref: i krigens tid). Will edit it in when translation complete. Viking1808 (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * caveat above now resolved Viking1808 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

More Ships in the North
Two more ships - frigates in danish eyes, but possibly not in british classification - are named in the danish source that I am working on (Krigens Tid). Once spelling is corrected to English spelling, a London Gazette search yields this

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/16402/pages/1342

8 September 1810

HMS Belvidera (Captain Byron)

HMS Nemesis (Captain Ferris) (28) 598 ton

found three danish gunvessels at anchor near Studtland [unidentified on map - perhaps Stuttland near Stavanger?.] -  battle - two Danish two-gun schooners Balder and Thor struck. (but danish ships records do not have either Balder or Thor captured!) The smaller danish vessel - Gunboat Number 5 - was chased up a fjord, abandoned by its crew, and destroyed by the British.

We seem to be accumulating enough for at least a separate section in the Gunboat War (War in the Norwegian Sea ?)Viking1808 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, the British account is already in the article on Belvidera, and apparently I put it there, as well as in the article on the Battle of Silda. Someone else wrote a Danish account, which is not completely consistent with what you are finding. By the way, both Belvidera and Nemesis were frigates. As for a separate section, I am less enthused. The problem is that we have two dimensions, time and waters, and one-dimensional pages. The one thing we could do, though it would be unconventional, is for those years in the Gunboat War article where we have something going on in Norwegian waters, is to create a table with two columns, one for Danish waters and one for Norwegian waters. That way we would keep the time dimension while introducing a parallel space dimension only where it made sense. By the way, there is an additional issue, and that is that operations in the north overlapped with the Anglo-Russian War (1807-1812). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

War in the North
Hi Acad I have now put some of the translation on this user page User:Viking1808/War in the North just in case I lose it! There are several other leads to follow so treat it as very raw data! Lougen had an interesting voyage south in 1810, running aground and then nearly again.Viking1808 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is another offshoot of HDMS Langeland! Can you have a look at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Gunships and see what it may need to launch? Thanks Viking1808 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, Nice work & good research. You can see what I have done. As you find more info, you can add it to the table. Now, can I ask you to look at HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)? I looked on the Orlogsmuset's website and my impression was that they don't yet have a card for it. If you happen to have access to any additional info, that would be much appreciated. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One other thing - you need to think about the translation of the Danish/Norwegian for the vessels. In the 18th & 19th Century, "ship" had a specific meaning that did not include schooners. The British term is probably gunvessels. See: HMS Shark (1794). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all the above! It will not go live for a while, as there may be other things to check, so we have time to consider the final title. Also, I will see what is said about the Royal Yacht - Kronprindsens Lystfregat.Viking1808 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Phoebe
Hi Acad, I appreciate and thank you for your work in further developing HMS Phoebe. For your reference: You may wish to adjust ... 'On 31 May 1814 Phoebe and Essex set sail for England with Lieutenant Pearson of Phoebe in commanded the prize crew on Essex... according to your knowledge and preference, rather than me 'top' your considerable effort. :) Regards, Benyoch (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)
Hi Acad

All Danish Ships ( Sorte Registrant) leads to the record card at Orlogsmuseet but the notes are very faint and difficult to read. The word Chefer (=Commanders or captains) gives references to

T. A. Topsøe-Jensen og Emil Marquard (1935) “Officerer i den dansk-norske Søetat 1660-1814 og den danske Søetat 1814-1932“.

thus TJ II 13 (= Topsøe-Jensen Volume 2 page 13) gives

Koefoed, Georg Albrecht second in command of Kronprinsens Lystjagt in 1786 (and 1792 observer on the brig Lougen - sea trials), 1807 Governor of Bornholm where he died 1808. (plus much other irrelevant detail)

but a further reference TJ II 128 on the same record card appears to be wrong as

Lütken, Christian captain of the Kronprinsens Lystfregat Ørnen in 1787-88, during which time he carried the Crownprince to Norway. Died 1803 Copenhagen

and Ørnen (the eagle) variously designated Royal Yacht (kgl. jagt), kronprinsens lystfregat. (pleasure frigate) and lystskonnert (pleasure schooner) was built in Denmark 1776 and was taken out of commission in 1791.

Concerning the dimensions, there is a small discrepancy between those reported by you and those reported on the Danish Naval History website, although the rest of the story is the same. I leave you to recalculate length, breadth and depth - possibly using 1,00 Dk-fod = 0,3139 m which is the factor you can access via Alen and a link there.

I will keep my eyes open for anything else relevant. Viking1808 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Gunships - Title?
Hi Acad - I am happy now with this article User:Viking1808/Norwegian Gunships including all your input. But what about the final title? Various option include
 * Norwegian Gunschooners ( a direct translation) but to me this sounds too literal and not good English
 * Norwegian Gunboats but we should keep this name for the smaller vessels that darted out on calm days and back to port within 24 hours.
 * Norwegian Gunships - my favourite, but you have doubts
 * Norwegian Gun-Ships (i.e. with a hyphen, as you have added in defaultsort, I think)
 * what else??

Once we agree, the article can be "søsat" (launched) And once launched, my Danish contact may be able to find out the fate of the others where the box is blank. Viking1808 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, Got to run to my paying job, but I would vote for the direct translation: Gun-schooner, with the hyphen. Ship had a technical meaning at the time, and is readily confused nowadays with armed helicopters. Gunvessel or Gun-vessel would be OK, but it's a bit generic. We know more than that. If Gun-schooner was waht the Danes wanted to call them 203 years ago, I would be completely comfortable with it today. Still, your article, your call. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Acad - I still feel happier with Norwegian Gunship, so have gone with that. If there is any feeling for a better title, it can always be changed later.  Alongside this is an article about the 1810 captain of Lougen, Müller.  The translation notes in the user page User:Viking1808/War in the North will stay there meanwhile, in case expansion is required.  Thanks as always Viking1808 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum again
Hello! Thanks for your continued work with the National Maritime Museum data. I was just talking to them earlier with a view to setting up a real-life event. The kind of event we're discussing is an editathon where we go along and pull resources from their archive which we can then use to update articles (including the chance to scan documents/photos where any IP issues can be resolved). This isn't yet definite, but they've asked us to have a look through their online archive catalogue and think about what use we could make of it. Let me know what you think! Regards, The Land (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi The Land, I like the idea. I don't know my way around their archives though so can't be much help there. What struck me was that there are mysteries in some of the stories I have worked on that I would love to see if we could resolve with more digging in places I don't have access to. Do you think they would be amenable to a list (half a dozen or so) mysteries?

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question. As a first step, you could try typing search terms relevant to the mysteries into the search tool on the archive and seeing if anything interesting came up :-) The Land (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the odds of low-hanging fruit are pretty slim.I looked up 11 vessels, of which 6 weren't in the database. Only got a hit on one vessel, which was in the database, and the info was irrelevant. I did not do indirect searches, but I would doubt that the capsule archive description would include obscure info. In a sense I am not surprised. things that are easy to find would probably already have been found. But it does call the idea of an editathon, at least for my period, not likely to be highly productive. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Norway's Seven Brigs
Hi Acad - Have a look at User:Viking1808/Seven brigs postscript which could be fitted into several of your ship articles. I have been into some complicated translations recently but occassionally come across a nice snippet like this. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Viking1808, welcome back. I had feared that you had wandered off to other, more lucrative, pastimes. Thanks for the heads up re the brigs. I think that should be a separate article, with a table showing the brigs, and a section on the gunboats. That way, we don't try to repeat the same info several times. What do you think of an article titled something like, "Dissolution of the Dano-Norwegian Navy"? Acad Ronin (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better title would be "The New Norwegian Navy (1814)" eventually. Meanwhile, I think I need to work a bit more on the officers involved (currently stubs or poor articles only) plus the Danish side of Allart (no article yet), and keep the strings together on HDMS Lolland whose section on the norwegian navy might eventually be moved to the new article.  Viking1808 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Acad - Thanks for the improvements to Gunboat War recently.

Some more pages for you to look at. The Allart article is pretty well complete as far as the Scandinavian input goes, but needs the British angle and extra references. As you suggest above, there is a need to run all these brig and schooner articles into one whole, plus perhaps all the Norwegian officers. Could these fall into a new category - (say) add category: New Norwegian Navy 1814 perhaps. How does one do that? Or what do you suggest? Viking1808 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Viking1808/HDMS Allart also
 * Lorentz Fisker, and
 * Jens Schou Fabricius plus one which is not "mine"
 * Carl Adolph Rothe.
 * Hi Viking1808, You can see what I have done with Allart. I am not finished with the British stuff - I will need a couple of more days grace and I will let you know when I have added all that I can. I think a category and article for the new navy is a good idea, however, I am not the one to ask about setting up categories. I have tried to do so a couple of times and have botched it each time. If I recall correctly, Brad101 came in and cleaned up my mess. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Acad! Taking on board your latest suggestion, I have put together the skeleton of a wikipage at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Navy 1814 that can act for general connections and will be of use if we get a Category set up. Any input from you most welcome. As that page matures, we could then approach Brad101 for his advice !? ( am I overworking you?? ) Viking1808 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Viking, Don't worry about over-working me. I can always just disappear into the ether if I so choose. On the Norwegian navy page, I would drop the stuff about the past battles of the gunboat war, and any mention of graves or careers of officers who did not actually transfer. I would keep the page to the actual separation. A final paragraph about the strategic issues facing Norway from 1814 might be a way to reintroduce mention of the Gunboat War, the Pomor Trade, Havic, and some such references. Also, I am done with Allart. I have exhausted my sources there. I believe that article is now ready to launch. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mange tak igen! Thanks - Allart is now launched. You have been busy with 1814- I will take a while to take it all in. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Actually... see my talk page again please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I'll try to make sure to prevent it from being changed again in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Entreprenant
Hello,

it is always with great interest that I follow your contributions, and I would like to seize the occasion of your findings regarding Entreprenant to testify my great appreciation. This ship is a bit of a mystery, and I was very pleased to read your additions. Congratulations and thanks, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rama, Thanks for the kind words. As I specialize in minor vessels, I tend to fly a little under the radar. I am still digging on Enteprenant, and hope to be able to add a minor addition or two. This business of keeping the name while changing the vessel is a new one on me. Let me reciprocate your kind words with my own expression of appreciation for your work on the French vessels. Given the co-evolution of the French and British navies, having input from the French side makes for a more nuanced and complete picture. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Copenhagen 1807
Hi Acad - another challenge!

In Note 1 to the HDMS Allart (1807) you include the first reference in English to the names of ships taken by the British after the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) that I have ever seen. (exciting!!). Currently there is a flag on the section of that article "Ships Surrendered" quote This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability. unquote.

Last year I put two sections into the talk page of Copenhagen (1807) using Danish sources but drew no further comment. Can you have a look and see if our two heads can improve the "Ships Surrendered" section and remove the tag.?

Perhaps further discussion should be on that talk page? Viking1808 (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Magdala Battery
Hi AR, thanks for your work on the article. I did try and fix a missing ref prob but I'm not sure I used the same ref layout as you. We are very involved with the fortifications of Gibraltar as part of the GibraltarpediA project. If you have an especial interest in this area - or know someone who might then we will be adding wikipedia based signage and would value some input. Victuallers (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) That sounds ideal. As you know Gib is covered in fortifications. Is there a group of you? If there was free accomadtion (maybe, I'm just trying ideas out) then would the travel sound attractive? Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the idea is attractive, and very kind, I live some distance away from Europe. I mostly get my fortification visiting done when I go to conferences and tack on a day or two after the conference. The Guernsey walk was a bit of an aberration. (For some unfathomable reason, my wife does not find visiting fortifications compelling. We couldn't miss the Guernsey towers because we kept passing them as we walked.) Unfortunately, I am not aware of any conferences in my field scheduled for Gibraltar, which my wife and I visited back in 1996, before I got active on wikipedia. A secondary issue is that I would be loath to compromise my anonymity, given that I suspect my colleagues would look askance at my wikipedia hobbies. On a more positive note, should I add HMS Calpe, and particularly HMS Calpe (1800), to the category History of Gibraltar? There may be other vessels RN vessels with ties to the Rock. Also, should I put some of the Gibraltar project links on the relevant pages? What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Askance? hmm do you know that there are american profs who claim tenure based on wiki articles (partly). Well I'd be very pleased to have your help - we are planning to run a wiki conference in march next year in gib - I'm guessing that isnt your field! Still I can see good reasons for keeping yourself anonymous.

We have just found a complete list of all of Gibs fortifications .... its actually an aircraft carrier that would give nimitz a run for its money. HMS Calpe? Well I think thats certtainly on the g'pedia category. (When we did monmouthpedia we included all the hms monmouths) Please add some gibraltarpedia project pages - that would be great. .... and you can add your anom. name to the list of helpers at gibraltarpedia.org. Very pleased to have met you. Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Finish
Could you finish this ... ok bad joke!? Actually I thought you might use this as a source]? but its only an option being as you mentioned hms calpe Victuallers (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-retired?
Just in case you decide to study more Gib fortifications ... Victuallers (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversions to the Xhosa Wars page
Dear Acad Ronin,

Apologies for the recent reversions to the Xhosa Wars page. Unfortunately, while you did correct many genuine grammatical errors (I've also been working on fixing that page; while I've fixed some of its problems it does indeed still have many issues that need tackling), you also inserted a great deal of sentence fragments, incorrect subclauses and misplaced prepositions (e.g. "the Xhosa people lost of most of their land") in place of genuinely correct sentences. These are common errors for second language speakers of English and totally understandable (I used to work as an English teacher when I was younger so I know how bizarre and difficult English preposition usage is!) but they are nonetheless errors.

I will go through your suggested edits properly later and incorporate the valid ones (especially those referring to links and paragraph structure where you made valid corrections).

PS. Xhosa/Zulu grammar is prefix-based but these prefixes don't need to be expressed in English. The normal practice regarding Nguni names is to omit the prefix in English text. (e.g. You wouldn't say "He was speaking isiXhosa" and more than you would say "He was speaking Français". The normal practice is to say "He was speaking Xhosa/French")

Abu Shawka (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)