User talk:Jackyd101/Archive7

Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814
Hi Jackyd101! First I would like to congratulate you on many good and good articles in which you vastly contributed. Regarding to the Battle of Lissa (1811), the most common name for that battle that I have found was Battle of Lissa (modern Vis). Not counting Croatian sources, of course. So, I really don't have any problems with that. Anyway here are some sources with the name Battle of Vis:
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AwYlA4wjdDokJ%3Ahrcak.srce.hr%2Ffile%2F74545+Battle+of+Vis+1811&hl=hr&gl=hr
 * http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ALnccUobS--IJ%3Ahrcak.srce.hr%2Ffile%2F53104+Battle+of+Vis+1811&hl=hr&gl=hr

The problem that I see is in the names of geographic places within these two articles, especially in the Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814. You said: "The links should be the names used at the time, otherwise it is anachronistic", whit I completely agree. But, this article is not a report from the battle from that period of history. What I am trying to say is that readers are not familiar what these places are. So, I think that thear "modern" English names should be included, especially because they are not new names. If you didn't like Dubrovnik (Ragusa), Mljet (Melida), Rovinj (Rovigno)...what about Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Melida (Mljet), Rovigno (Rovinj)...In this way your sentence finished with the name from that period, and gives a information on the today's name. What do you think? Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your interest in the article, it is much appreciated. In answer to your points, 1) when determining the name of the battle, we aren't looking for what the island was/is called (it is indisputable that it is now called Vis). Instead, we want to know what the battle was/is called, and the way to do that is to look for "Battle of Lissa" or "Battle of Vis". Your first source is therefore not useful in this process, but the second may be. 2) You mention what the battle is known as in Croatian, but actually this could be relevant to the article and I will find a way to incorporate it in the same manner as I did with Egyptian in Battle of the Nile. 3) I think your counter suggestion of having the modern name in brackets after the linked contemporary name is the best way to present this, although I will leave it up to you to implement it. I hope this helps, and once again, thankyou for all of your work. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add, what is the battle known as in Croatian?
 * Thanks for your positive cooperation. The battle is known in Croatian as Viška bitka or Viška bitka 1811. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Pulo Aura
Congrats on promotion to fA! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Orders of battle
I know you pretty much only do naval things, but you also seem to be the only person who has promoted orders of battle to feature list status. I would like to get Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (and eventually also Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island) promoted; I believe there is sufficient meat in terms of background and detail to do this. I'd welcome any suggestion in terms of suitable content and formatting that you could provide, probably best on the article talk page. Thanks for your input!  Magic ♪piano 22:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

A favour
Hello, Jackyd101. How are you? I have a favour to ask of you. For reasons unknown to me, some reviewers on my latest FA-bid, Mary of Modena, are wont to elaborate on their initial comments. Time quickly running out, I was wondering if you could take a look at the last remaining issue, the prose, for me. Thank you in advance! -- Jack1755 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I implemented all of your recommendation. Thanks again. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hate to bug you again, since you've been so, so helpful already, but would you mind seeing whether or not I dealt with your list of problems correctly? Remember--you reserve the right to say no! Thanks :D. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Educational GANs - again
Thanks for your past help, this time I have three articles that will be waiting for GA reviewers in early June: details. If you are interested in helping out once more, don't hesitate to post there! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews
You have been mentioned as someone who might do a GA review upon request. The Millennium Park WP:FT is at risk of being demoted on June 13th if we can not get Park Grill up to GA status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinking Tudor Lord Admiral
Hi! Since you are undoubtedly WP's Lord Admiral, and have been a very helpful and encouraging GA reviewer with John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick back in December, I thought you might be interested that his notorious daddy is in a serious deadlock because of prose problems. Unable to perceive of what these consist, and requested to find "someone else", I would very much appreciate your 3rd opinion or suggestions at Talk:John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland/GA1; even a superficial look could perhaps help a lot. Anyway, thank you! Buchraeumer (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is good hope that the issue is resolved now. I found an editor who was interested and happy to give the article a copy edit. I was not aware of this possibility before, so please pardon. I hope everything is o.k. in RL. Have a good time. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ganoga Lake review
I got Tomasak's fairly new Biography of Colonel R. Bruce Ricketts and as a result have added about 5 kB to the Ganoga Lake article - diff. I am asking the FAC and PR reviewers to please take a second look at the Ganoga Lake article and make sure it still reads smoothly and clearly. If you find problems, please raise them on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work!
Just want to say very well done on all your work. Keep it up chap! Bruich (talk) 23:30 20 July 2010 (GMT)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyril Smith
Hi Jackyd101

Per MOS:HONORIFIC, in Wikipedia, "Honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters."

Regards, Bongo  matic  00:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. However Cyril Smith was not an "Honorary knight" but an actual one: honorary knights are non-Commonwealth citizens awarded knighthoods (i.e. Dwight Eisenhower, Bob Geldof or Bono) Cyril Smith was a British Knight Bachelor and therefore his knighthood should be included - indeed in British English it is incorrect not to use the pre-nominal when the full name is given. The section you link to does actual say this, although it is badly written and far from clear.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Bachrach
Please see my comments at Template talk:Did you know.4meter4 (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Bachrach
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Jackyd101's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

For a user ribbon you can use, see  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Expédition d'Irlande
Expédition d'Irlande. Just reverted an ip that placed back Ledennierhomme's controversial text, and I suspect it's the editor in question. Just to let you know; if it happens again, I'll take it to AIV or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cumberland/San Martin
I am not sure whether the website is so good. There are no sources for that text and Gerardo Etcheverry didn't mention/find other sources than the Chilean Navy site, more over, he noted the error in the year of the Battle (1810 <-> 1804). --Keysanger 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Educational GANs
Perhaps you'd be interested in helping to review an educational GA again, like you did a while back? See here. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:07, 11 September 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 September 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors or his delegate, or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. 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! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 

The Second Ostend Raid was the latter of two failed attempts by the Royal Navy to block the channels accessing the Belgian port of Ostend in 1918. The strategic advantages conferred by the Belgian ports in the conflict were very important; a successful blockade of these bases would have forced German submarines to operate out of more distant ports, such as Wilhelmshaven, on the German coast. The ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge provided sea access via canals for the major inland port of Bruges, which was used as a base for small warships and submarines. The Ostend Raid was largely a failure as a result of heavy German resistance and British navigational difficulties in poor weather. In anticipation of a raid, the Germans had removed the navigation buoys and without them the British had difficulty finding the narrow channel into the harbour in poor weather. When they did discover the entrance, German resistance proved too strong for the operation to be completed as originally planned. British casualties in the raid were heavy, compared to minimal German losses. Despite its failure, the raid was presented in Britain as a courageous and daring gamble which came very close to success. (more...)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vindictivewreck2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Vindictivewreck2.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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Naval Actions 1793-1815
I saw your sandbox list, and just wanted to say that I recall seeing in a book a distinction made between an action, and engagement, a battle and an operation. I don't think these were contemporary definitions, but this author (and I can't recall which), suggested that an action is a ship-to-ship combat, while an engagement is a multi-ship combat while not being part of a squadron command. A battle would have been a combat where at least one side was operating as part of a unified squadron command, and an operation was a combat where a fleet engaged in combat that allowed multiple squadrons to play their individual parts. A campaign required multiple fleets to operate in unison at least over two distinct operational areas or over a period of at least two seasons. Sadly I can not recall where I saw this, and I'm sure it was not intended to deal with the Napoleonic period, but the author was trying to bring clarity to naval history in general. This may however allow your list to be divided into five. I would also suggest that actions between ships of the line should be in a separate list to those between frigates to offer a better base of comparison. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I should note that I'm not a regular contributor here any more, so I won't be taking any significant action on this issue whatever the outcome. I haven't read the history you mention and so I can't comment on the source or the era, but it all sounds too complicated to be a practical system of organising naval engagements on Wikipedia (or are you just talking about the list on my user page? If so, that list is divided by campaign and by sequence in which I worked on each article - it isn't intended to be a useful catalogue for anyone but myself).


 * I think the system we have now works well. In summary, anything known formally or colloquially as a battle is given the title of "battle" (from Battle of Trafalgar to Battle of Pulo Aura any many others). Secondly, the land-battle system is used, whereby any engagement with no recognised name which was fought close in-shore is named after the nearest feature or settlement (i.e. Battle of Vizagapatam or Battle of Tellicherry). Finally, if the battle was fought far from land and has no recognised name, a simple "Action of [Date]" signifier is used, no matter how many ships were involved or what the outcome was. This is useful because it avoids any accusation of bias, bypasses a potentially complicated set of rules that seperate actions based on the number of vessels involved (such as the one you give above) and allows for simple sorting and cataloguing. I also note that if followed to its logical conclusion, your system would mean that Trafalgar wasn't a battle but an operation (as more than one British squadron was engaged), which doesn't seem practical. Interesting idea though.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Britannia Royal Naval College graduates
Category:Britannia Royal Naval College graduates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Woolwich graduates
Category:Woolwich graduates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Query
Hi Jackyd101, I've raised a minor query about a detail in one of your articles, at Talk:Benjamin Caldwell. I wonder if you can clarify the matter. Best, Benea (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown
Hi Jacky,

Great job with getting Order of battle at the Battle of Camperdown up to featured list status! I have nominated the article to go up on the main page in the Today's Featured List section. Some concerns about the article have been raised here. If you are willing to help address these concerns, it would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)