User talk:Navops47/Archive 8

Category:DJ Mag templates has been nominated for discussion
Category:DJ Mag templates, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. — swpb T go beyond 17:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections you can delete category.--Navops47 (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Navops47, I see you're still not referencing our material at the Dreadnought Project properly. Please do not simply copy and paste our references, but cite our pages. The most recent example (out of very many) is at Battle Cruiser Fleet note 4. I would be grateful if you would go through all the material you've copied in this manner and rectify it by citing our pages and not just copying our notes without attribution. One of the reasons the Dreadnought Project wiki was created was so that we could provide archival research in a form which is frowned upon by Wikipedia, and for you to steal our work in this manner is extremely irritating. &mdash;Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Simon please re-look at the edit history I did not add that reference at the end of that sentence another editor did here and if that has been done before as your are suggesting it was not me.--Navops47 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Commander-in-Chief, Levant) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Commander-in-Chief, Levant, Navops47!

Wikipedia editor In Memoriam A.H.H. just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Well done on the article! Its sources are reliable and in foot citations are used well. Good work!"

To reply, leave a comment on In Memoriam A.H.H.'s talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 09:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Admiralty Central Metallurgical Laboratory
Hi, I'm Ozzie10aaaa. Navops47, thanks for creating Admiralty Central Metallurgical Laboratory!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. upor further checking seems to be copyvio per https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Admiralty+Central+Metallurgical+Laboratory&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello thanks for the reminder attribution was provided in the edit summary which is usually sufficient for OGL 3.0 material according to advice from Admins in the past. An external link to the copyright holders licence has been added.--Navops47 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the Humber Station article
Many thanks NavOps47 for this article!! Two things; please add the Category:Military units and formations by date of establishment, and disestablishment, like the one I added, Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1945 I added as an example. Secondly, WP:MILMOS specifies that the article be named at the designation it last had ("When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used;"), thus the articles you're creating should probably be at their 20th century title, thus Flag Officer in Charge Humber. Hope that's clear; don't hesitate to come back to me with questions. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay mate I will remember that--Navops47 (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm sounding heavy; I just don't want to have to go round after you adding the establishment date categories and fixing the article names. I'd really recommend you read WP:MILUNIT and WP:MILMOS. All warmest - trust you're doing well!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One further observation the October 1944 Navy List p.2255 and October 1945 Navy list p.2234 still list the station as Humber in column 1 the Flag Officer in Charge, Humber is in column 3 as the commander?--Navops47 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the constant changing of names is confusing. But my rule has been guided by the more modern (thus according with MILMOS#UNITNAME) usage. In the 1980s and 1990s we had CINCFLEET and various other *Commanders*, and even a long while back we had C.S. Forrester naming Hornblower as 'Commander-in-chief of His Majesties' ships and vessels in the West Indies'. So when it's contradictory, I have tended to go with the personal appointment, that is, FOIC Humber. The two exceptions, where it's very clear, have been the Mediterranean Fleet and the Far East Fleet. So I would probably advise you to go with FOIC Humber. Cheers !! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Destroyer flotilla articles
Well done for starting to create these, all those red links were annoying me too. I think there is a problem though. Generally the articles state that the flotillas were disestablished around 1940 but when you look at the what links here list you find a lot of ships which link but are from a later period so I guess the flotillas were reformed later. For example HMS Sluys (D60) 1st DF 1945, HMS Barfleur (D80) 3rd DF 1953, HMS Dunkirk (D09) 4th DF 1946 Lyndaship (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you I am trying to gather the information from the three main web sources Colin Mackie gulabin.com Naval History.net and Dreadnought.org together with my copies of the Navy list the first source doesn't list the flotillas at all which is strange since it starts from 1865 but he lists destroyer squadrons but they tend to appear after 1945 when the term flotilla was dropped in favour of squadrons. Gordon Smiths site naval history,net does have a post 1945 page up to modern day which I will need to re-look at I think he also mentions flotillas becoming squadrons I think he listed them as e.g. 4th Destroyer Flotilla/Squadron. Unfortunately I am yet to find any Captain (D) lists beyond the periods I have given from the sources. Nothing is listed in the Navy Lists other than the flotillas being grouped under Commodore/Rear Admiral (D) for the Eastern Med and Home fleets.--Navops47 (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you are right with regard to flotillas being renamed squadrons at some point post war. I've just looked at the Almark book on Battle class destroyers by Hodges, there are many pictures which state taken when she was a member of x destroyer SQUADRON in the 1950s. However that still leaves in doubt if they were originally titled flotillas between their reformation towards the end of the war and the 50s. The problem we have is many ship articles links have turned blue to go to the pages you have created and if someone clicks through it says the flotilla didn't exist then. Maybe a shout on the ships board to see if anyone can help? Lyndaship (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just re-read Graham Watsons article at https://www.naval-history.net/xGW-RNOrganisation1947-2013.htm This paragraph now explains the confusion.

FLOTILLAS AND SQUADRONS 1947-1971
 * 'For most of the period under review flotillas were tactical organisations in which the ships deployed and operated together. There was an increasing tendency for squadrons to undertake administrative duties, and to assume responsibility for training and readiness. After 1951 the term flotilla applied to the higher command organisation of squadrons in the Home and Mediterranean Fleets. The squadrons of the Home Fleet were grouped under a Flag Officer [Flotillas] Home Fleet who became the main seagoing flag officer. A similar arrangement applied to the Flag Officer [Flotillas] Mediterranean Fleet. In the Far East the Flag Officer 5th Cruiser Squadron became Flag Officer 2nd in Command with similar seagoing duties. Increasingly the term 'Submarine Flotilla' was used to describe the squadrons under command of the Flag Officer Submarines' It appears that the flotillas became squadrons from 1951 onward administered by three three Flag Officers Flotillas for the Eastern, Mediterranean and Home Fleets. Colin Mackies site http://www.gulabin.com/Royal Navy Senior Appointments from 1865 does not state that he lists them as squadrons before the 1951 change. I created the some of the Destroyer squadron pages so it looks like they will need changing and then re-work each of the destroyer flotilla pages to reflect your earlier comments to me what do you think?--Navops47 (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find! I think it would be best if you could establish what date the flotillas were reformed and add that to the articles which would then make all the blue links valid. In the articles give the information that after 1951 they were retitled squadrons (and explain the flotilla command structure) and create redirects for X Destroyer squadron to the X Destroyer flotilla articles while watching for any false links from ships in other navies which belonged to their X Destroyer squadrons. Thanks for all your good work Lyndaship (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See you've done an excellent job on these covering all the angles. Well done Lyndaship (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks bit of a nightmare took me a couple of hours there maybe a few straggly ends I might of missed I did cross check the ships articles when I moved the ship components from the destroyer squadrons to the flotillas correct time periods.--Navops47 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good work Navops47 for sorting this out; I would personally tend to go with Graham Watson's page explanation as his sources (esp Navy News) seem to be pretty solid. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much I will plod on with the others quite a few to go though :).--Navops47 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sasha_(Welsh_DJ)
Your input as an editor who has edited Sasha (Welsh DJ) substantially is needed in this requested move - Talk:Sasha_(Welsh_DJ). Please consider participating. The editor  whose username is Z0 13:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments were registered thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks and very much appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clement Moody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dennis Boyd ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Clement_Moody check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Clement_Moody?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Now clear.--Navops47 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Essex Championships
Hi, I'm Slatersteven. Navops47, thanks for creating Essex Championships!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Only one of the references mentions the topic and it would not establish notability. This is going to need a lot more sources establishing notability for this to survive an AFD.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * 1884 Men's Tennis tour ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1884_Men%27s_Tennis_tour check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1884_Men%27s_Tennis_tour?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to Newport, United State and Howard Taylor
 * 1881 Men's Tennis tour ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/1881_Men%27s_Tennis_tour check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/1881_Men%27s_Tennis_tour?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Brentwood

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Corrected using that program I think.--Navops47 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your citations say "surface fleet", not "Surface Fleet"
It is not a military unit or formation. It has no commander or headquarters. You could try and retitle the article Surface combatants of the Royal Navy, or maybe Surface forces of the Royal Navy, but again that's not a military unit or formation; it's a description of a particular type of naval force - surface, as opposed to sub-surface or air.

The article is an anomaly in your otherwise excellent series of RN formation articles. To match your series of other articles, your options are (a) Rear Admiral Surface Ships, which accords with MILUNIT as the most recent name of the appointment (since we're going off appointments rather than organisations), or merging the data into Home Fleet and Commander-in-Chief Fleet, which would follow your earlier logic in terms of organisations.

All the fleet composition data is misplaced; it belongs in Western Fleet (United Kingdom) and Commander-in-Chief Fleet.

Currently I will have to remove the military-unit-and-formation categories from this article, because this is not a unit or formation.

Happy to chat, but I hope you do see what I mean - this isn't an organisation. You cannot capitalise the name. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Buckshot okay lets start from scratch here: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/ Our Organisation. The five fighting arms of the Royal Navy work together to protect our nation’s interests at sea, on land and in the air. Listed are Surface Fleet, Submarine Service, Fleet Air Arm, Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary note capitalistion on the official website. Technically the correct official term to be used here is an arm of the Royal Navy. However with the exception of the Fleet Air Arm that term is not being used correctly to describe the other fighting arms. In the specific link about the Surface Fleet  again you will note the use of capitalisation. Looking at the term, military arm various dictionary definitions describe it as a branch of an armed force a military branch is then described as a division of a military organisation and a division is then described as a military unit.  Classifying it as a military unit is correct and it does have a commander the Commander United Kingdom Maritime Forces and Rear-Admiral Surface Ships dual titled the fact that he has two titles must mean there is a difference in his responsibilities which we need to find out otherwise why use two titles.


 * I would suggest the following then after reading your comments re word the history section, we remove all information regarding administration/command structure of this military arm or branch prior to 2002 including the history and distribute it accordingly to where it should be in the C-in-C Fleet article not the Western Fleet it was disbanded in 1971. Section 6 of the Royal Navy Surface Fleet should then be re-worded as administration of the surface fleet. The introduction will need to be changed to describe it as a fighting arm or branch of the Royal Navy similar to the Fleet Air Arm article for consistency all 5 fighting arms or 5 fighting branches of the RN should be described the same way and currently they are not we have for the The Corps of Royal Marines (RM) is the amphibious light infantry of the Royal Navy, The Fleet Air Arm (FAA) is the branch of the British Royal Navy, The Royal Navy Submarine Service is the submarine element of the Royal Navy, The Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) is a civilian-manned fleet owned by the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence. What do you think?--Navops47 (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest we move this Talk:Royal Navy Surface Fleet.--Navops47 (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll move the whole discussion, yes. The rear-admiral in question has an operational, ** star seagoing command role, COMUKMARFOR, but his commodores do much of that, and sometimes, as per EUFOR ALTHEA, he ran the operation from Northwood, so he didn't need to go to sea. It's not very often that the RN has a big enough fleet at sea so that a ** star needs to command it. Check what I've just added to United States Fifth Fleet - even that temporary command was only a commodore's position. So for the rest of his time, he has an administrative role as Head of a Fighting Arm, as Rear-Admiral Surface Ships. In that "hat" he looks after all the heavy ships administratively, as well as twenty-odd destroyers and frigates.
 * We should not use dictionary definitions, we should use official Royal Navy descriptions of what a Fighting Arm is. But yes it is vaguely similar to a Corps. So the article "splits" into three, as a compromise: they do capitalise Surface Fleet once, so the article title can remain but will need to have a Category:Fighting Arms of the Royal Navy created for it (and the other four). Meanwhile yes move the historic fleet command data, if post-71 is just CINCFLEET then CINCFLEET only. We should also create Rear-Admiral Surface Ships and put it in Category:Royal Navy appointments. COMUKMARFOR exists already. How does that sound? One last note, in the RN of the last 25 years, following USN practice, everything has a big abbreviation, like COMUKMARFOR. They're official titles so they should be added wherever you find them. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Watson's got a couple of minor things wrong
It was always COMUKTG, as in Commander UK Task Group - do some searches if you like. Please enable the "E-mail this user function" - I want to send you something. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay and yes my email is enabled check my user page.--Navops47 (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Offices under Fleet Commander and Second Sea Lord
Do you think Office of the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Training) should be under Fleet Commander based on the Navy Directory or under Second Sea Lord?

Sammartinlai (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff Training is a duel role held by the Flag Officer Sea Training this organogram here shows him reporting to the Fleet Commander click the First Sea Lord then click the Fleet Commander his subordinate officers which includes the (ACNST) the oragnogram was last updated 31 March 2016 and there have been 10 versions of that organisational chart before it back to March 2011.--Navops47 (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the Navy Directory is newer from 2017. Also, looking at Fleet Commander and Second Sea Lord, Commandant General Royal Marines is listed as under both, although clearly it should be just under one office, that of the Fleet Commander's. Agree? Sammartinlai (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reporting lines are forever changing this newer list than your newer list last updated 30 April 2018 has Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Training)/Flag Officer Sea Training and Commandant General Royal Marines reporting to the Fleet Commander.--Navops47 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there's a September 2017 list so you are just as incorrect. Sammartinlai (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To make very clear the Navy Directory 2017 was compiled January 2018 look at it again. This link https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/676681/Navy_Apr_17_senior_data.csv/preview was updated 30 April 2018 4 months later than the Navy List ACNS (Training) and FO Sea Training and Commandant General Royal Marines report to the Fleet Commander as they did previously to Commander-in-Chief Fleet the current Fleet Commanders former name. The Navy Directory is a seniority rank list that is showing some subordinate officers under the higher ranked officer but not all. The Fleet Commanders MOD post unique reference number is 1933859 cross check my last link/source who reports to that number.--Navops47 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Your list September copied from it R Adm A J Burton OF-7	Commander UK Maritime Forces	The Royal Navy’s 2* formation level commander, providing a rapidly deployable maritime, amphibious, joint, coalition or national contingent headquarters staff, and responsible for generating the Royal Navy’s two 1* deployable commanders (COMUKTG and DCMF) reporting to 1933859, Maj Gen R A Magowan	OF-7	Commander UK Amphibious Forces / Commandant General Royal Marines The Commander of the UK Amphibious Forces leads a rapidly deployable amphibious land, maritime, joint or national contingent headquarters staff that is currently the Royal Navy's standing 2* contingency formation headquarters. Commandant General Royal Marines reporting to 1933859, R Adm R K Tarrant	OF-7	Commander Maritime Operations	Commander Operations has three broad areas of responsibility; on behalf of Navy Commander he exercises operational command over all operational Fleet units worldwide, including Royal Marines, outside the PJHQ Joint Operations Area. reporting to 1933859, R Adm J R H Clink OF-7 Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Training) / Flag Officer Sea Training	Commands the training for the Royal Navy. This comprises all Naval Training including, for individuals: initial generic Naval Training for Officers and Ratings; initial Career/Professional training prior to employment; career continuation and promotion reporting to 1933859.--Navops47 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Flag Officer, Second Flotilla) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Flag Officer, Second Flotilla, Navops47!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"The wording of the lead is a bit confusing."

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted--Navops47 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Flag Officer, Third Flotilla) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Flag Officer, Third Flotilla, Navops47!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"The lead needs attention here too."
 * And so does Flag Officer, Surface Flotilla. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted--Navops47 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WPMILHIST tagging on your articles
Hey Navops47,

at first let me say thank you for working on military history articles. It seems you´re lately creating quite a lot in regards to the British Navy, which, as you probably know, is relevant to to the British and Maritime task forces of WikiProject Military History. Now it would be helpful if you, when creating your articles, could also create a respective talk page with the project template WPMILHIST, be it with or without taskforces, so that the page will automatically appear in the projects article lists. There it can gain attention of other editors within the project who can work on improving it and assess its current state on the project's quality scale. Just a suggestion of course. So thanks again and please continue your good work. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming to your articles from earlier in the year I`m seeing you apparently already know. Anyway, thanks. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and noted been rather immersed in what I have been doing.--Navops47 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wish
Hello. Help add Wayback Machine for sources 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27 in Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 115.74.201.137 (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello never worked on that page and is not an area I am interested in.--Navops47 (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of ranks
Hi, I just moved and edited several articles you created to reflect Wikipedia's capitalization guidelines for military ranks. See WP:MILTERMS, particularly "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under [ Manual of Style/Capital letters ]. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." And, in fact, see Brigadier general. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am following the official definitions for terms and acronyms used throughout Ministry of Defence documents publishing service.gov.uk:MOD Acronyms and Abbreviations.--Navops47 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I've drawn your attention to the guidelines that apply on Wikipedia. There are hundreds of writing styles throughout the world; it's customary for a publication, or a whole publication house, to put together its own guide to be followed internally for the sake of consistency within its pages. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * MOD Acronyms and Abbreviations is a list of acronyms and abbreviations. It doesn't claim to be a list of terms, let alone a guide to the proper capitalisation of terms. Its capitalisation is explanatory, showing the letters used in the acronyms and abbreviations (e.g. XP eXchange Point). 92.19.29.177 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The source shows them in Capitals suffice to say if the MOD wanted them displayed in lower case that would have written them that way in the document they uploaded and I provided a verifiable source to show this. Feel free to find an alternative MOD source that shows those tiles being written differently which supports your hypotheses.--Navops47 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In case this needs pointing out, it's immaterial here as Wikipedia isn't a communication issued under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence, but an independent publication with its own manual of style. Largoplazo (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point a metaphor springs to mind when I think of you like a dog with a bone move along now largo and going doing something better with your time.--Navops47 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as your request to put further editing contrary to guidelines through reporting channels rather than discussing anything with you directly. I'm not sure why you would want that when you can settle things and make life easy for yourself by simply getting the point, but each to his own. Maybe some people think pointless defiance is its own reward.Largoplazo (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)



A page you started (List of command flags of the Royal Navy) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of command flags of the Royal Navy, Navops47!

Wikipedia editor Newslinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for contributing this article to Wikipedia!"

To reply, leave a comment on Newslinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—  Newslinger  talk   08:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

WP matter
Hi - Apologies for the delay in replying - I just saw your message. I would prefer to communicate via talk pages if possible rather than email. What's the issue? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem I forgot to make clear that the reason I needed to chat with you for advice via email is because any TP communications would attract unhelpful attention that I would rather do without at this point. Hence my need to explain my situation to you privately, seek your advice as how best to proceed, but it is okay if you cannot do I understand best regards Navops.--Navops47 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back!
G'day Navops47. Welcome back to the Milhist project! If you'd like to sign up for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle, you can do so here. It is an excellent way to get a feel for the project. Look forward to seeing you around. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pm67.--Navops47 (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

COMATG
Thank you for creating the COMATG page. I have made some edits to thicken the information, but I am very grateful for your creating it. Yours, Jamesparkin (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC) (COMATG!)
 * Hi James your welcome and thanks for improving the article maybe you could take a look other current senior officers to check they are okay.--Navops47 (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
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 Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
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 Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)