User talk:Saberwyn/archive six

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 23:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of MTV’s The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors that may live in or near those cities. Do you live in or near Darling Harbour, and if so, would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Sydney residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream 15:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's great. The address of the building is 19 Darling Walk, Darling Harbour Sydney NSW 2000. You can find more info about the place, including pics of what it looks like (copyright protected, unfortunately) here. Thanks! Nightscream 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, shit. Oh well. I'll just ask RealWorldHouses.com if I can use theirs. Since I've given permission for them to use my Brooklyn pics, I'm hoping they'll say yes. I'll also pass along the info about that house that you gave me. Thanks for all your help. :-) Nightscream (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 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) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMAS Sydney (R17)
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

HMAS Sydney
Wow! That's a fantastic re-write of this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded, I assume this will be coming to either the MILHIST ACR or FAC soon? -MBK004 11:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. The article still needs a little more work, but will definitely begin going through the motions before the end of the year. -- saberwyn 11:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1
Have you seen this? Is it feasible?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Saberwyn, I just noticed that you don't have rollback rights enabled on your account. Are you interested in having this enabled? - if so I (or any other admin) can easily set it up. Information on what rollback lets you do is at Rollback feature (in short, it's a simpler version of the 'undo' function, which allows multiple edits by a single editor to be easily reverted). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. Let me know if you'd ever like it enabled. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMAS Sydney (R17)

 * Nice article, Saber. Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing up the infobox for HMAS Doomba - I've been wondering how to do what you did for a while, and now I have a good template to use! I found out today that this ship came to my grandfather's aid when the ship he was working on (SS Allara) was torpedoed off Newcastle in July 1942, so it seemed a good topic for an article. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Zoids video games
I have nominated zoids video games for merging into zoids. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. G.A.S talk 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Zoids Anime
I have nominated zoids anime for merging into zoids. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. G.A.S talk 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Photos
Hi Saberwyn, the photos at http://www.kockums.se/news/photostock/photo.html might be of interest/use for the Collins class article. The licensing conditions look acceptable for Wikicommons ("The pictures below are made for printing and they are of course free to use." ... ". I've just uploaded one photo at File:HMAS Collins Kockums photo.jpg Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 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) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of HMAS Melbourne up for deletion
Hi Saberwyn, you might be interested in the discussion. - Nick Thorne  talk  05:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll stay out, because I'm not sure which side to take. While the event is significant and should be illustrated, (1) the current interpretation of the Non-free content guideline doesn't look like allowing the image, as a free use/public domain image of the damage could feasibly be out there, and the "historic event" clause leans more towards the image being of the event (i.e. the collision or immediate aftermath) or the image itself being the subject of commentary, (2) in the grand scheme of things, it isn't unreasonably long before images related to the collision do hit the public domain, and (3) its not that good an image...there are better ones out there illustrating the damage more clearly. -- saberwyn 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Books on HMAS Melbourne
Hi Saberwyn, in the discussion about the Aus Vietnam carrier category you said you need to track down two books. What are you looking for, I might have the necessary info in one of the books I have here about Melbourne and the Fleet Air Arm. - Nick Thorne  talk  13:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking for content to clarify the carrier's relationship to the Vietnam War...i.e. that there wasn't one, as 'Melbourne never entered Vietnamese waters and only escorted Sydney for brief periods. I'm fairly certain that Nott & Payne's The Vung Tau Ferry: HMAS Sydney and Escort Ships discusses this, and the info may also be in Grey's Up Top: the Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian conflicts, 1955-1972. -- saberwyn 05:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 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) 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Royal Australian Navy ships
Thanks for your tidying up of the page, and I agree with you about removing the Age column. I do not know what possessed me to add it in. :-) B. Fairbairn (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Kelvin
Hi. You left a question on my talk page regarding some of the photos I've put up. My great uncle was on HMS Kelvin. I know the ship got around a bit (he had campaign medals for practically every oceanic theatre), but I don't know how he got some of the photos he had. The Bartolomeo Colleoni pics are a case in point. Kelvin was in the Med in 1941, but I think she arrived in October and the Battle of Cape Spada was in July. The two photos you've spotted were in his collection - which included pictures of him at his post on the ship - and they had his handwriting on the back indicating which ship was in the frame. I assume that sailors traded photographs and these two "action" shots were exchanged with a sailor from another ship which was there at the time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could only speculate that since the target is pretty close it is more likely the guns belong to a destroyer, perhaps on a torpedo run (Ilex or Hyperion?). I doubt the photographer could be standing so close to the main guns (certainly of Sydney) if they were being fired at the time. Also, assuming the other photograph was taken by the same person, the shot of the ship exploding would almost certainly have come at the end of the action - Sydney had disengaged by this point so it points to a destroyer. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo of yours used without attribution
Hi Saberwyn, I just saw that the September 2009 edition of Australian Defence Magazine has used what appears to be File:723squadron Augusta recovery.jpg without attributing it to either you or Wikicommons. It's on page 8 of the magazine if you can find a copy. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will have to check that out. By my layman's understanding of the licenses, they should have attributed it: is there any sort of proceedure for a situation like this? -- saberwyn 07:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the rules either, but I think that they at least needed to attribute you and may not have been able to include it in a commercial publication. The relevant guidance seems to be Reusing content outside Wikimedia. I can't see what the enforcement mechanism is, though; you could try the Commons village pump. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an update: I haven't been able to track down a copy of the magazine myself, nd I don't want to raise a stink without that. I'll keep looking, even though its probably out of newsagents by now. -- saberwyn 07:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Ikip (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran
Thanks for the heads up and your good work on the article. I am a bit busy for the next few days, and will have a proper look as soon as I can. Grant |  Talk  03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some difficulty with your amendments to the Article "Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank"
You state that 33 Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank were operated by the Royal Navy or the British Army (the Royal Army Service Corps and latterly the Royal Corps of Transport). However you list 34 - perhaps there is a double entry for L3047? I would suggest that this is because L3047 was originally HMS Rampart and then became HMAV Akyab. The other eleven Army LCTs never saw service with the Royal Navy. There is also a double listing for L4063 - HMS Jawada. This then reduces the list to 32, which is my original total.

With specific reference to individual craft:

L4002 HMAV Agheila - "This was probably the last Mark 8 LCT to be decommissioned from the Army Fleet." This is because I left 20 Maritime Regiment Royal Corps of Transport briefly before said decommissioning.

L4037 HMS Rampart/HMAV Akyab - This vessel did also have enlarged bow doors - I have a photograph somewhere and will try to find it.

L4061 HMAV Audemer - "This ship's bridge and superstructure were modified sometime in the 1960s in order to be the flagship of 20 Maritime Regiment Royal Corps of Transport" - This is true but unfortunately I do not have photographic evidence as I lost the camera over the side one wild and windy night. I was the 1st Lieutenant at the time!

L4062 HMAV Aachen - "Fitted with twin funnels in 1962" - I cannot vouch for this but I will do some more research!

L4073 	HMAV Ardennes - "The new HMAV Ardennes (LCL) commissioned c.1977 was given Pennant Number L4001" - This is pertinent information.

"The original L4073 was sailed to Singapore in 1960 and delivered to the Malaysian Forces." I will research further and get back to you.

"The story of the rescue of L4073 off St Kilda is presumed to be the inspiration for the Hammond Innes novel "Atlantic Fury"." I admit that this might be a bit of Army Maritime folk-law but I will do my best to prove it. The rescue of L4073 is well documented!

L4164 	HMAV Arakan - The new HMAV Arakan (LCL) commissioned c.1978 was given Pennant Number L4003 - again this is pertinent information.

I have not interfered with your revision as I am now sick of "editorial wars". I will just leave it up to you. When I started this minor subject little did I think that it would cause so much controversy!

Perhaps this is why contributors and editors are leaving Wikipedia in their droves!

I do have various images of MK 8 LCTs and would be willing to forward them to you in order that you might properly display them.

Regards

Medcroft (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replied at your talk page. -- saberwyn 04:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply


 * Sorry I have been away (in NZ!) and had other matters on my mind.


 * It does amuse me that you were born about 10 years after these craft went out of service.


 * This might be a useful reference for you:


 * http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/StKildaMilitaryInstallations#fn1_3


 * You might also like to look at this:


 * http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/p=3054281.html


 * Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) might be an authorative source but you might consider that they could also be wrong. Of the 32 ships (check your numbers again), 11 were never commissioned in the RN (because of a shortage of sailors) - about 40 Naval compared to about 20 Army personnel per ship - but were operated by the RASC (and subsequently the RCT).  The exception is HMS Rampart which became HAMV Akyab - complete with altered bow doors.


 * Your comment:


 * Jane's Fighting Ships (JFS) mentions two "L4063"s, one unnamed and one named Jawada


 * See comment above but Landing Craft numbers were always allocated meticulously.


 * With regards to:


 * L4073 HMAV Ardennes - "The new HMAV Ardennes (LCL) commissioned c.1977 was given Pennant Number L4001" - This is pertinent information.


 * "The original L4073 was sailed to Singapore in 1960 and delivered to the Malaysian Forces." I will research further and get back to you.


 * "The story of the rescue of L4073 off St Kilda is presumed to be the inspiration for the Hammond Innes novel "Atlantic Fury"." I admit that this might be a bit of Army Maritime folk-law but I will do my best to prove it. The rescue of L4073 is well documented!


 * This was a reference to HMAV Ardennes and not to “the original L4073” – apologies!


 * The references to the later HMAV Ardennes (LCL) L4003 and HMAV Arakan (LCL) L4001 are pertinent - HMAV Agheila (LCT) L4002 was still around at the time.


 * I have no knowledge of the naming conventions of the RN ships but the Army ships were all named after amphibious landings (successful and unsuccessful). These were not named or renamed after foreign cities starting with "A"!!!


 * Once again I have not interfered with your revision as I am now sick of "editorial wars". I will just leave it up to you.


 * I am still sorting the boxes to find the photos – I will get back to you.


 * Happy Christmas!

Medcroft (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Further information regarding Reference 3:


 * RCL Agheila and RCL Antwerp were Ramped Craft Logistic and not LCTs or LCLs. They both carried historical names of previous LCTs but HMAV Agheila [LCT (8)] and HMAV Antwerp [LCT (8)] were both decommissioned in the 1970s.


 * As regards the naming conventions - they were all named after amphibious landings beginning with "A". With a little research this would be obvious to you.


 * Now regarding the "extra" LCT:


 * I have found a reference to 13 Mk 8 LCTs being sent to Singapore. Now each RASC Maritime LCT Company was supposed to comprise 12 Mk 8 LCTs (one in the UK and one in the Far East).  I have a vague memory of one being lost which might have been the duplicate L4063 (and not L4063/HMS Jawada).  This might explain why L3047 (originally HMS Rampart) was transferred to the Army and then became HMAV Akyab as a replacement.


 * More to follow. Once again I will leave the editing to you.  Still cannot find my photos - hope not lost during a previous house move!

Medcroft (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Luna Park
Yes, that part if the edit summary was from a previous edit. Sorry for any confusion. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Txs
Hi Saberwyn, thanks for doing the complicated stuff on Notational bias! Joepnl (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- saberwyn 03:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shooting skeet
Thanks for the heads up on this. I should confess, however, I wasn't expecting one; I'm often (perhaps too often ;p) a driveby editor, & unless the subject interests me, I don't watch the page. (In this case, it doesn't grab me enough. : If you do want continued input, I'm happy to offer, but it'll probably take you prodding me over it. ;D  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 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) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank
Hello saberwyn - I must admit to being a bit irritated by people fiddling with the article - particularly as I actually served on four of them. Thank you however for your contributions.

Regarding the pennant numbers - I do think that they are important - names can confuse. For example HMS Rampart/HMAV Akyab (L4037) and HMS Jawada/unamed (L4063). I am still trying to get to the bottom of the L4063 issue.

As regards the Polaris missile: The US supplied all Polaris missiles for UK Ballistic Missile Submarines and UK based US boats (or "Boomers" as they called them) via the mothership (the name of which I cannot remember) based in Holy Loch. The RN depot for nuclear missiles was (and still is) RNAD Coulport about 25 miles north west of Glasgow and part of HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane. As there were generally one or two Mk 8 LCTs (more in olden days) based in Faslane they were the obvious vessel of choice for transferring the missiles. Rhu Hard was an ex-RNAS seaplane base.

The LCTs were also a key factor in submarine rescue operations/exercises (also so called "sub-sunk"). As far as I am aware their services were never called upon in a real rescue.

I have a raft of older photographs which I am currently cataloguing and will post shortly.

Medcroft Medcroft (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

TFA time
I just noticed that one of "your" FAs has a relevant date coming up that may be appropriate for it to be "Today's Featured Article". HMAS Melbourne (R21) could appear on 10 February in commemoration of the Melbourne–Voyager collision. At WP:TFA/R where you would request it, the article would be a two-pointer (date relevance and age of article (promoted +1 year ago)), which normally would be extremely hit-or-miss on being replaced or not, but since there is currently only two requests on the page, I believe you have a better chance of it sticking if you act quickly. -MBK004 06:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a clue how to format a nomination, but I'll give it a go. -- saberwyn 08:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have any problems, you could either ask for help on the talk page there or ping for help (I recently reminded him of an opportunity exactly like this). I am now off to bed (3 AM). -MBK004 09:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It all looks good, now we wait. In the meantime I do have a suggestion for if the article does get to the main page. Melbourne–Voyager collision and Melbourne–Evans collision could both use infoboxes. The one I suggest is in use at USS Missouri grounding incident and USS Iowa turret explosion. -MBK004 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With at least five articles (your two, my two, and Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision), would it be worth doing it up as an actual template? -- saberwyn 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well actually Missouri is TomStar81's baby and Iowa is Cla68's. Here are a few more, and an alternate infobox, which is MILHIST standard instead of the custom one: Submarine incident off Kildin island and HMS Vanguard and Triomphant submarine collision (which needs an infobox as well). As to a dedicated template, that might be something we could discuss at either WT:SHIPS or WT:MARITIME with a note at the other to notify the other of the discussion. -MBK004 05:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By 'yours', I meant the two you mentioned. My two collision articles need some heavy polishing, after I do that I'll try to knock something together in userspace: see how strong my template-fu is. -- saberwyn 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood what you meant, but I still give credit when it is due for those articles. As to the template help, I know a person who can help out if needed. is a genius with templates and is responsible for the formatting of all Timeline of spaceflight articles (look at the infobox and launch list templates), the best developed being 2008 in spaceflight. -MBK004 05:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Redhornmodel.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Redhornmodel.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Voyager-Melbourne collision
I understand your concerns, but without the "Subsequent Investigations" section I fear the article does not address the actual collision cause, except in terms of blame. The cause remains controversial, which is of interest, as does the performance of Royal Commissions in such investigations, including the lack of attention to lessons learned. My suggestion would be to re-title the section if there is ambiguity and address specific citation issues so that the section is improved as required.

There may be a problem with sourcing the Frame quotes because there were hard and soft backs and, I believe, alterations between editions. The Ferry article was published in the Journal of the ANI in Summer 2004. The web update, which sources subsequent support for the analysis of the accident's cause, is unpublished.

Different topic. The article reads: "At 8:55 pm, with Voyager still turning to port, Melbourne’s navigator ordered the carrier's engines to half astern speed, with Robertson ordering an increase to full astern a few seconds later.[4] At the same time, Stevens, having just arrived on Voyager’s bridge, ....." I believe this last to be misleading since it suggests that Stevens had no prior knowledge of, nor participation in, the lead up. The chart table, where he had been immediately before, was integral with the bridge and he had been on the bridge during the manoeuvre before going to the chart table to read a document. I believe the Frame book "Where Fate Calls..." makes this clear and describes a note by the Chief of Naval Staff to the effect that he found Stevens' absence from the bridge during the manoeuvre puzzling. Some extracts I have from the first and second Royal Commissions also discuss this. The first does this at page 11, the second at p185. But should you have the Frame books and be able to check the citation and particularly its context this would save some time (and effort!) since no longer do I have access to it.

I suggest this phrase be deleted. Barbigal (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the phrase from the article.
 * Regarding the "Subsequent investigations": Where Fate Calls is sitting on my desk at home, I've just downloaded Ferry's published article, and I have an article by Chris Oxenbould, which also analyses the collision. I will go through these sources tonight, verify and/or fix the section, and reintegrate it back into the article. -- saberwyn 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Analysis does contribute a deal to the article. One point. At its ultimate paragraph, "Although discounted during the Royal Commissions......." My reading of the Reports (and some of the evidence) does not support this, though I recall Frame asserted to this effect but without attribution. What in fact was discussed during the first Royal Commission was what Captain Robertson described as a double fishtail, a different manoeuvre. The context (in the first Commission's report) clarifies some nomenclature confusion between the two. The second RC did not reopen the issue. I would recommend deletion of this phrase unless there is primary evidence for it.Barbigal (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks once more Saberwyn. I seem to have used the wrong page for this: noted for any future forays. Incidentally, the Ferry web article is an improvement on the published version and has citations.Barbigal (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Lieutenant pronounciation in the RAN
Noticed you reverted the incorrect changet to "Leftenant" in the RAN article back to Lieutenant with the comment if I read it correctly that Lietenant is pronounced "Leftenant". This is not the case in the RAN. In the Navy it is pronounced "l'tenant", the "Lieu" is a very short "le" with almost no vowel sound at all. I vividly remember having this drummed into me as a midshipman at HMAS Cerberus in 1977. - Nick Thorne  talk  09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn me and my civilian-ness :P I know the Americans use the heavy "lieu" (hence "looie" as a nickname) and that some American naval personnel I met while in the States once complained about 'those British nations' not pronouncing it how it was spelled. Where I picked up the "lef" pronounciation, I don't know...I must have taken one and one, then added it up to three. Thanks for correcting me. -- saberwyn 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the "Lef" pronounciation is used, just not in the Navy, for example in the Army, Lieutenant General is pronounced, IIRC, using the "Lef" and the Air Force often use the "Lef" pronounciation for Flight Lieutenant. Remember there are three ways to do everything: the right way, the wrong way and the way the Navy does it. -  Nick Thorne  talk  20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True that *chuckles*. -- saberwyn 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Howe
Many thanks for your time and interest on this. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 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) 04:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne
Thank you so much. Keep up the good naval history work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno2007 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Costa Deliziosa
I've made a suggestion about your hook at T:TDYK that you might want to consider. Nyttend (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, since you did such a great job with Deliziosa, would you mind tackling Costa Favolosa and Costa Fascinosa, both of which were just created today? The creator is notorious for inadequate articles and is responsible for why Deliziosa was salted until she entered service. -MBK004 09:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go, but it won't be for a few days. -- saberwyn 20:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't think this is as urgent as Deliziosa was since we were getting hits on a redlink then. The two articles assert enough notability that they shouldn't be bait for speedy deletion and I think I've cleaned them up enough to stay in the article namespace temporarily, but they could use further expansion and standardization which I will leave for you to do. -MBK004 03:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, this guy has now decided to create articles on every single cruise ship currently on order even if they haven't even begun construction. If you would like to help me out, I'm now officially over my head with Celebrity Silhouette, MV Seabourn Quest, and MSC Magnifica on top of the original two Costa ships I first pinged you about two days ago. Plus I'm betting that if my warning to him did not take heed then these links will be blue tomorrow: MSC Meraviglia, MSC Favolosa, and AIDAsol. I so want to just go rogue and block this guy. -MBK004 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fascinosa and Favolosa are done, or as done as I can get them, as almost every single source out there is a paraphrasing of one of two Costa press releases. I'll try another one or two tonight or tomorrow morning: work has a funny habit of interrupting my editing schedule. -- saberwyn 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand how that goes. I've gone from thinking I had four days to be able to put together an article I've been planning for two years to having two assignments due in 36 hours. Upon looking it seems as though someone else has jumped on Magnifica, so only a cursory glance should be sufficient, if you only have a short time available at some point. -MBK004 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All three are done. Magnifica looks okay, but Silhouette is fairly shaky, and Quest even more so (every source I can find is a paraphrasing of a single press release. There's not going to be much more content on these two until (at the earliest) they start laying hull, and if either one is prodded or taken to AfD because of the lack of reliable, independant sources, I'm not gonna contest. -- saberwyn 09:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia (1911)
I've added the technical stuff and am thinking about putting it up for GA with you as a co-nom since you did the basic work, but thought that you might want to give it a read through for style, consistency, etc. And if you're aware of anything that describes her activities post-Jutland that would be great, because the official history doesn't have anything of significance--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really want me in on this, it'll have to wait a little while. My wiki-time is going to be fairly limited for the next week or two because of real life commitments, and I'm going to need a few weeks anyway to track down sources and refamiliarise myself with the ship. -- saberwyn 08:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And knowing me, I'm going to want to expand and overhaul the entire "Operational history" section before it goes up for GA. -- saberwyn 09:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I put my hand up to work on this a few months ago, but have done next to nothing on it so far... Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a "current state of the article thing", but more of a "potential state of the article" thing. You of all people should know how dangerous it is to dangle a potential top-notch (GA/FA) article in front of me :P
 * On a serious note, do you know of any potential sources? -- saberwyn 09:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness yes - one of the reasons I haven't gone ahead with this is that there are too many sources. For instance, the political decisions which led to her purchase and decommissioning are covered in Tom Frame and David Stevens' histories of the RAN, Stevens' has a chapter on what the ship meant to Australians in Navy and the nation: the influence of the navy on modern Australia, the naval volume of the official history of WW1 has plenty of coverage of her and there's material on the ship in all the usual sources (Gillett, Jane's Conway's, etc), and that's just a starting point! I don't think it will be possible to go into the level of detail as in the articles on the carriers, so it should be reasonably manageable. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Overhaul it as much as you like, whenever you like; I'm in no hurry. And if you can find more on her service while attached to the Grand Fleet that would be great. Because I haven't been able to find out much other than her collisions, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mk VIII LCT
Cheers for looking in Saberwyn, I was actually going to contact Milhist once I got home to get some outside opinion. Apologies also if I came across as shouty or threatening (I'm actually trying to offer the user support). Just to clarify, I only added the info in order to add a sourced statement and support the current claim, and in doing so changed "amphibious" to "WWII", to reflect the source. Not such a major change really, but I can't knowingly allow the source to be manipulated. But debates like this aren't what what I joined Wikipedia for so I won't be commenting on Medcroft's talkpage any more. Cheers again, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

 * I seem to have lit a banger in the back garden over the issue of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (British). I think it is really good that a number of you have now made positive contributions, rather than arguing about whether they were named after WW2 battles or WW2 amphibious landings.  My suggestion therefore is, that rather than row about it, let us talk constructively.  I served on 2 of these boats; so I do know what I am talking about.   I intend to completely re-write the article shortly and I will submit my text to all of you for peer review and approval.  Little did I know what controversy this item would cause when I first started it.  My public e-mail address is Med.croft@virgin.net.Medcroft (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RAN honours
I suspect that this posting on the Navy's website will be of great interest, particularly the list of all honours awarded to RAN ships. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've know about the list for a while, but this is the first document that explains what that list entails. Thanks for the heads up...now I just need to find the time to update everything. -- saberwyn 07:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 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) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia I‎
Sorry about causing the edit conflict. Is it OK if I help out with this? It's been on my to-do list for a while, and I've currently got the relevant WW1 official history volume and another book with a chapter on the ship out from the library. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens. Go for gold...the more you help, the better it will end up. I'll be offline for the rest of the day if you want to take some time and play with it. -- saberwyn 01:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election
for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref formatting on Australia
Apparently Reflinks fills everything in, so I've only chucked in raw links at the moment. Hopefully if works  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think I'll stay clear for a while anyway...my slow, steady, save-rarely style of editing is having trouble keeping up with the rate of change the article's currently experiencing.

Thank you
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe   N  14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback!
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also granted you autoreviewer. — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although I see few (more likely zero) occasions where I'm actually going to use these tools. -- saberwyn 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but just in case... :-) Also, what do you think of Navbox shipwrecks of New South Wales? It's huge ! — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it scares me. If anyone else adds it to an article, all well and good, but I'm not touching it. -- saberwyn 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. I'm not touching it either; code is not my forte. :-) — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 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) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk VIII
Happy to look into it, don't worry. Ardennes can indeed be found on p162, but the details were pretty wrong, so I've corrected that. Also gone with what the book tells me for 3 other vessels (I'm not sure about this RASC/RCT history). Antwerp certainly doesn't appear on 162, so I've changed that one a fair bit. Several accounts and anonymous IPs with similar editing habits seem to be active on the article now; User:Audemer is now also on the Wikicommons page. I can guess who it might be.... Ranger Steve (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoever they are, I'll give them a fair go. However, misrepresenting sources is a nice way to kick off. -- saberwyn 09:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

SMS Helgoland
Well, I prefer that less than a link too. I'm asking your opinion on whether it would make sense to link the SMS ... most English-speakers aren't going to know what that means, right? They may not even guess. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although they won't know what it means, I think that the majority of readers will get the idea that SMS is some kind of idenfiying prefix (like HMS or USS) without the article having to state it outright, particularly when they see in the body of the article that all contemporaty German warships also carry the same three letters. For those few who have a burning desire to know exactly what SMS stands for, they can easily search for it. -- saberwyn 00:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I apologise for the confusion about the editing of the talk page of Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank. We clearly were trying to do the same thing at the same time!

Audemer (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's alright. It happens sometimes. -- saberwyn 03:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia ACR
Since you have the most edits to HMAS Australia (1911), do you believe that you deserve to be a co-nom and gain an ACM credit along with Sturmvogel on the ACR? -MBK004 07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind, but I think Sturmvogel should make the call on that. -- saberwyn 08:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Left him a talkback pointing here. -MBK004 08:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Credit for an ACM is definitely in order! I specified as much in my original nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, FWIW, both editors did substantial and outstanding work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did your friend ever get a chance to take a look at the article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I reckon roll on with the FA nomination, if they become free and can look, I'll make any changes as we go. -- saberwyn 21:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in, I think that this article would easily pass a FAC Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bathurst's
Hello

Sorry for the delay: I've replied there, but (sorry!) I can't really add anything; the article is pretty thorough as it is. Apart from Elliott's text, there are some tables, but it's much the same information that's in the List... article.

I've also changed the layout of the ship list; it seemed better to have them under headings, but if you disagree, then feel free to revert it. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:10, 17 April 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) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: HMNZS Wellington (P55)
Hello Saberwyn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of HMNZS Wellington (P55), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Source and destination articles are the same. Presume this was a typo, pls check. .''' Thank you. Nancy talk  17:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

HMS New Zealand (1911)
Could you take a look at this article? It needs help with the lead and how to organize the end with the bit about the skirt and tiki, etc. I think I've been staring at it a bit too long even though I swiped a lot of text from the HMAS Australia article to speed things up quite a bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. I'm giving the text a go-over now, and I'll try to spruce up the lead and keep playing with the body over the course of the weekend. -- saberwyn 08:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Some observations and requests for more info (some of which will probably duplicate the GA assessment, if it happens quickly enough:
 * In service
 * Need some info/context to fill in the gap between the 1913 world tour and the start of WWI.


 * Heligoland Bight
 * First sentance is awkwardly worded, but I'm not sure how to fix it yet.
 * Second paragraph: was Beatty riding in New Zealand. If so, this should be specified at the start of the section. If not, where was he, and what were New Zealand's actions during these events?


 * Scarborough raid
 * Not sure if the Scarborough raid was a.m. or p.m. ... I think its a.m., but please clarify.
 * Again, where was Beatty? From the context, I'm guessing not NZ
 * 'Overhauled': Not sure what this means; the only definition of the word I know doesn't fit (NZ was performing maintenance on Roon? :P) so a link or clarification would be good here.


 * Dominion tour
 * Although the NZ visit would probably have been the highlight of the tour, information on the ship's actions during the rest of the tour would be useful
 * I recall from somewhere that it was to allow Jellicoe to review/report on the state of naval defences in the Dominions, and will try to find the relevant article in the next week or so. -- saberwyn 11:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Update, Its in http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/PIAMA19.pdf...the specific article runs from page 11 to 23. Although written about one of the staff officers assigned to the tour, it does give the reasons for the tour, and some times and places for NZ. -- saberwyn 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "...where crowds flocked to visit her as they had done in 1913, when it was estimated more than a third of the country’s population went aboard during the eleven weeks she was there..." Which tour is the second half of this referring to? I suspect the second, but "in 1913, when" could mean that the rest of the sentance refers to the first tour.
 * Although the Washington treaty is mentioned in the lead, there is no mention in the body. This would provide additional context to her paying off and scrapping.
 * Wow, that was much more than I was expecting, thanks ever so much! I'll try and work on it a little more today to address your points, but I'm a little concerned about your use of double periods, or full stops, as I believe they're called in the Commonwealth. I'm used to seeing the period used for an abbreviation as the last word of a sentence also used to close that sentence rather than use another period as you've done here. Is this common in British English?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the rule is, by I personally prefer "am" and "pm", which bypasses the problem entirely ("a.m." and "p.m." were in the article originaly, so that's what I used) -- saberwyn 01:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wandering through. I have a bias that you guys don't need to share, but when there's a way to make everyone happy, I prefer that ... everyone meaning roughly U.S. newspapers and magazines (i.e. AP Stylebook), Chicago, our MOS, and most British, Canadian and Australian editors (do we have any Kiwis?).  AP prefers a.m., p.m. (with periods/stops) if you're on a 12-hour clock.  We never have double periods at the end of sentences (with the very occasional exception of the ellipsis, ...). - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Another observation: NZ was originally to be assigned to the China Station, but as far as I know, she never ended up as part of that fleet. How this came about would be a key piece of information...I think it might have been a similar case to Churchill's attempted grab at Australia. Once you find details, the information could probably be summarised in the lead section with a line at the end of the first paragraph (something along the lines of "Although New Zealand was originally to operate as part of the China Station, ..." -- saberwyn 10:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC) -- saberwyn 10:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another another observation (you're going to be sick of me by the time I'm done :P): Regarding the Maori gifts, I think the best way to handle them in the article would be
 * Describe the items and mention their presentation in the relevant tour info
 * During the first battle where thier 'good luck' effect is detailed by sources, add a line at the end of the battle with something to the effect of "During the battle, the Maori piupiu and tiki presented to New Zealand during her 1913 Dominion tour were worn by Captain J.F.E. (Jimmy) Green; the battlecruiser's success [qualify as appropriate] was attributed to this."
 * During subsequent battles where the wearing of the items is described in sources, add a line to the effect of "As in [previous/the previous battle(s)], the ship's [success/luck - quantify if it calls for it] was seen as enhanced by the wearing of the piupiu and tiki by her captain." -- saberwyn 11:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

to mention their presentation during the tour, then at the end of the battles that the sources mention the gifts' wearing
 * OK, thanks for the additional info. I'll be on the road the next couple of days, but I might be able to add some of this stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you both on the Australia article passing its FAC. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you cleaned up my recent addition on NZ at Jutland. Anything else that you noticed that could use a cleanup? I'm a little concerned about the whole bit about the piu piu; I'm not sure that I really integrated it into the text very well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a poke at it. About the only thing I'm having trouble with is the quote from Howard...it doesn't really fit into the body of the article, so I've whacked it into a quote box to see how that goes. I've also removed two of the external links (which between the did little more than give three more photos...not really adding much to an understanding of the subject that is beyond the scope of the article, but YMMV). The "Record of HMS New Zealand from RNZN History" is actually a Google Books-like online reproduction of a 1956 book on the RNZN, which may be of use as a source. -- saberwyn 07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointer
I've added a bit to your thread at Sturm's page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Motivation award
Hah! Just wait until I dangle the WWI cruisers in front of you!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TTCP rename
In theory, and wrt WP policy, you are quite correct. However, in reality, 90% of people who have heard off TTCP have some idea what it is and what it does, but have NO idea what TTCP abbreviates. However, we can't rename (move) the article TTCP, because it's not the primary use. Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If they know only the acronym and have a vague idea of the program's purpose, they will be able to find it through the disambig page at TTCP. -- saberwyn 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ark Royal
I know it's been a while since we worked on this. recently removed the website section from the reference section of HMS Ark Royal (91) on the grounds that ' seems highly unusual to list websites in such a manner'. I reverted him, and have done so again when he repeated the action. I've responded to him here as he seems to be trying to press for a form of consistency not mandated in referencing, the MOS, or FA criteria, and in doing so is deleting the references. Maybe you'd like to chip in? Benea (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

New Australasian Gold Mine disaster
Hi there, Just noted your edits on the article-thanks very much, no one else seems interested to expand upon it and I only know a small amount about it myself, regards --Read-write-services (talk) 23:13, 3 June 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) 21:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

LCA Thanks
Dear saberwyn, Many thanks for the assist on the RAN and LCA. I am going to delete the dusters from the operators listing. Regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That Box
Thanks for letting me know about my MK 1 cock-up in the Pelourus class cruiser article. I wrestled with that damm box for ages. It just goes to show that everything should be checked before pressing 'save'. Will attempt to fix forthwith. RASAM (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That Box, Part II
I've just looked at the article (probably something I should have done in the first place), and all the links (names in the box), that I clicked on went to the appropiate ship, including Pandora. So, could you tell what is wrong? Everything seems tickety-boo to me. RASAM (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of damn talk page stalkers
I hope nothing I said at FAC was disillusioning. From where I'm sitting, every ship and ship class that passes ACR passes FAC these days. Let me know if you need help with any articles. I'm going to start pitching in at GAN starting tonight. (My tonight, your today ... so confusing.) (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your confusion...I love timezones. :P
 * In regards to FAC, I think I'm just becoming disillusioned with it, and don't enjoy jumping through the ever-changing and sometimes unnecessary hoops in order to pass this marker. It partly stems from interactions with other editors at various nominations (to emphasise, not you), but mostly comes from the threefold realisation that 1) I'm here to enjoy myself while applying my writing skills and interest in naval history for the Greater GoodTM (it is a hobby, after all), 2) that articles don't need a fancy checkmark in the top corner to be considered 'good' by the readers (as opposed to good by the Wikipedians), and 3) the changes prompted by FAC are usually related to copyediting and missing info, changes that would eventually end up being made anyway, in a more collaborative environment. With this in mind, I'm of the opinion that throwing myself into the heat-and-light that is FAC isn't worth a couple of pressured changes to an otherwise fine article and some bragging rights. -- saberwyn 03:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'm going to try to stretch to cover some of the GAN articles as well; see you there. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

a whale
Infobox ship characteristics template documentation is here. with regard to the 'whitespace', many editors--myself included--find it easier to edit when the data fields are aligned, and it's pretty standard. --emerson7 04:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy
Hi, I am about to enter into discussions here about Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy. In my opinion the lead is misleading at it talks about Royal Navy first? Your opinion as a "expert" would be appreciated. You may leave comments on my talkpage or User_talk:Epipelagic. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

HMAS TOOWOOMBA ... The Second Time
Ahoy Mate,

Can you please have a look at my 'wiki' writing - in terms of script and "appropriateness" for the info regarding HMAS Toowoomba. Don't willy nilly delete info, please ask me first?

... Remember a year ago I said Toowoomba would do great things? ... well the RAN thinks so!

Thesiger (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

naming for Bathursts
I saw your question here I don’t know about the specifics of the Australian situation, but the Canadian experience might be illuminating. Marc Milner (Corvette of the Royal Canadian Navy) says (p13) "The British dubbed them Flower class corvettes….the RCN took a different tack. After all, as Admiral Nelles … observed, flowers don’t knit mittens. So Canadian corvettes were named after Canadian communities, and local support was actively sought. Sponsors, often the wife of the mayor or some other local dignitary of the town … were provided at launchings. Dishes and silverware for the wardroom, and personal comforts such as magazines and woollen clothing, were provided by municipalities and local service clubs. And where possible the newly commissioned corvette-or at least their new captains-paid a courtesy call to the town itself." It was (says Milner) "a superb idea" (and I have to agree with him!). Xyl 54 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine that something in this vein was the case, and hopefully, I'll find the evidence to cite it one day. -- saberwyn 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Toowoomba ... Hello!
Hey Mate,

Again, I'm sorry if this the "incorrect" way to speak - but I'm sure you'll overcome it!

Please edit, change, re-style, or re-write what I have written! It's not some long running feud ... it's Wiki!

However, what I have written is the truth and is founded in web documents etc. (and actual service) - unfortunately, I dont know how to properly cite them.

So again, please feel free to do what you want; I'm cool!

Cheers

Thesiger (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ps. all that Wiki script is rather confusing!!!

PPS. If you want to alter it significantly, please ask me first? Catch you. Thesiger.

Orphaned non-free image File:Phoenix-Lord-Asurmen large.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Phoenix-Lord-Asurmen large.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Abaddonthedespoiler.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Abaddonthedespoiler.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:E-Eldrad-Ulthran large.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:E-Eldrad-Ulthran large.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Firewarriorsquad.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Firewarriorsquad.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CommanderOshovah.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:CommanderOshovah.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eldar-Guardians.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Eldar-Guardians.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aun&#39;shi.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Aun&. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fabius-Bile.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fabius-Bile.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Swap
I'm just going over HMS_Princess_Royal_(1911) now. You did a really great job on this, so ... if you see any sad-looking ship articles at the ships A-class review page that you're willing to copyedit, let me know, and I'll be more than happy to copyedit the non-ship article of your choice. This is just an offer to swap copyediting, not reviewing, which some would regard as, well, not evil but suspect. I'm trying to offload some of the WP:SHIPS copyediting to avoid real or imagined WP:OWNership issues (who, me?) - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 15 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 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo of yours used without attribution, again
photo you took in 2007 appears to have been uploaded to Flickr by someone else here without attribution and without the Creative Commons licence being respected. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I just noticed that you're away for the next few weeks (and so probably won't read this for a while) I've taken the liberty of posting a complaint on the Flickr page. I hope that this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have my retroactive permission. If they continue to be obstructive, do you know how I go about escalating this? -- saberwyn 11:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From the not-very-clear instructions at http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/us/details.html it looks like you email Yahoo at copyright@yahoo-inc.com with evidence that this is a copyright violation (a link to the Wikicommons file seems appropriate given that it includes metadata and is obviously the same photo). Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The image has vanished. Is that a good thing?
 * I guess that it means that the photo has been deleted - presumably by the guy who uploaded it. I guess that's better than it being uploaded without attribution. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
I have decided to give you this Award for all your work on the Pacific class patrol boat page, and merger. Enjoy and cheers from Atlantic Canada! -- Rob NS  04:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Iberojet
Hi, I have responded to your comments on my talkpage about the tagging of the Iberojet article as copyright violation. Crazy-dancing (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Australia II Crew/Team List
Noticed that you have removed the crew list. This is of historical interest so why remove it? Boatman (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a list of every single person involved with a vessel is overly detailed, particularly when not all of them would have impacted on the vessel's competition capability. The major players (owner, skipper, and designers) should be mentioned in the prose, but did having a particular person helming the chase boat or liasing with the media make Australia II perform better in the America's Cup and other envents, and does knowing their name improve a general reader's understanding of a racing yacht? If you disagree, feel free to re-add it...its not that major an issue. -- saberwyn 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your points and completely agree. I will re-edit focussed on the winning crew and hence a much reduced list of players. Thanks for the input.  Boatman (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Swan (D61)
Hi mate I noticed that you have removed the HMAS Swan from the Navbox shipwrecks of New South Wales Just wondering why? The vessl went on for a few years after leaving Navy service unit it sank approx 1934 http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/2001/09_17_01/story16.htm http://www.nswwrecks.info/SSS%20HMAS%20Swan.html Any chance you can put it back in the Navbox and add the Navbox back to the wiki article? You may also want to go into a bit of the history post the RAN service Thanks --Whodidwhat (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The navy sources indicated that the ship was broken up in 1930; with ship breaking being a fairly permanent process, and no information in the article to support the presence of the infobox, I thought that it was an error and removed it. Now that you've brought this new info to light, I'm more than happy to fix my errors. -- saberwyn 21:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No Drama's mate, thanks and nice work on the update to the Swan--Whodidwhat (talk) 23:14, 3 December 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) 22:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for that, well spotted. Apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was my error for listing the wrong source in the first place. -- saberwyn 20:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:ImperialGuardCadians.gif
Thank you for uploading File:ImperialGuardCadians.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Alias The Penguin
I've rv your Kormoran edit because it appears I was unclear. The problem was, Kormoran was a Sperrbrecher, not masquerading as one.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kormoran was an auxiliary cruiser (Hilfskreuzer or Handelsstörkreuzer), not a pathfinder or a blockade runner. According to the article linked, a Sperrbrecher was a type of auxiliary ship used to escort convoys and clear minefields using the "Any ship can be a minesweeper...once" method. My understanding is that Kormoran was disguised as this type of vessel while moving around inside German waters (for the final days defitiely, maybe earlier), then altered her disguise to a Soviet merchantman during the breakout.
 * From the ship's history at www.bismarck-class.dk: "...camouflaged as a Sperrbrecher, or ‘Pathfinder’, complete with dummy guns, on a short shakedown and working-up cruise.", "...he rendezvoused, at the lightship Adlergrund off Bornholm, with a real Sperrbrecher, that was to escort the Kormoran out through the Great Belt into the Kattegat.", and "At first light on December 11, well out to sea, and safely out of sight of the coast, the work of shedding her Sperrbrecher camouflage, and taking on her first operational disguise, as an anonymous neutral, began."
 * From the 2009 inquiry report into the loss of HMAS Sydney at the hands of Kormoran (chapter 3, p. 90): The Kriegsmarine designated [Kormoran] a Handelsschutzkreuzer, or ‘merchant navy protection cruiser’... For its operational purposes, the Kriegsmarine gave HSK 8 the name ‘Schiff 41’ (Ship 41)." and "In Germany’s official military records the Kriegsmarine classed Ship 41 as a Sperrbrecher, or ‘pathfinder’ ship..." followed by a role description that in no way matches Kormoran's duties. I recall from dead tree sources that the Kriegsmarine auxiliary cruisers were listed 'on the books' as other ship types, in order to obfuscate Allied efforts to identify these vessels.
 * That said, I'm going to wait until I consult the actual dead tree before I attempt to re-add this information to the article. saberwyn 23:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC) -- saberwyn 23:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably not have used the technical term... I was thinking of her as breaking thru the Brit blockade, which is broadly what the Sperrbrechern did. In any case, she was masquerading as a Brit (or Allied) ship, which is the issue for me: she isn't masquerading as a German ship, whatever her mission, which your change has her doing. <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura  00:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how the content can be rewritten to indicate that she was disguised as a German auxiliary warship of a different, less threateneing type (with specific wikilink indicating the that kind of ship's type and role) while in German waters, then changed her disguise from this to a Soviet merchant ship before running the blockade? -- saberwyn 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, because (unless I've badly misread it), she's not masquerading as a German ship of any type. She's masquerading as an Allied aux of a particular kind, for which we don't yet have a page. Unless, until, the redlink gets filled, I don't see an option. <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura  07:51 & 08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's my bad. At the time I wrote the content for Kormoran, there was no article for the German Sperrbrecher, so instead of using the German word without/with minimal context, I attempted to use, and redlink to, what I though would be a catch-all term. I thought that pathfinder ship would be a catch-all term for lead-from-the-front, quasi-expendable 'minesweeping' convoy escorts, not realising that (if I'm interpreting you correctly) this was a specific Allied/British classification of auxiliary warship. When you think about it, why would an Allied auxiliary be sailing around in German internal waters? -- saberwyn 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I can butt in, I've left a note on the Kormoran talk page about this. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On more careful reading, which I should have done before, :( :( it appears you were right in the first place. It read to me she'd changed guise in international waters; correctly she'd been a pathfinder before that, & you're right, & she was a Sperrbrecher, which would've been the correct generic German term. That being said, my apologies. May I suggest a change to Sperrbrecher, rather than "pathfinder"? <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura  21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries...it got sorted in the end. One question though, what's the "Alias The Penguin" section heading a reference to? -- saberwyn 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy in disguise. (A flimsy ref to the bird...) Thx for taking it well. :D (BTW, I didn't need the link. I've heard it. ;p) <font color="#1034A6"> TREKphiler  <font color="#1034A6">any time you're ready, Uhura  22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of lighthouses
Hi there. You recently assessed a bunch of lighthouse articles I wrote. First, I want to thank you for taking the time. Second, I want to ask you to reconsider. Best regards.--Muhandes (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * South Solitary Island Light - I thought it was B worthy. It is definitely way beyond start.
 * Richmond River Light, Hornby Lighthouse, Green Cape Lighthouse - I think all these are beyond start. Whether C or B I can't say.
 * All I did was take the Lighthouses project assessment and copy it over to the Australia project template (which were listed as "unassessed" at the time), because I felt the articles met, at minimum, that standard. Without more personal knowledge of lighthouses, I don't feel comforatble doing any more than that, sorry. If you're looking for higher assessments, you would be better looking for someone who knows enough about the lighthouses to ensure that the articles are comprehensive. -- saberwyn 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree, this should be done by someone with acquaintance of lighthouses. Since the edit summary was "assess as start" I presumed this was an actual assessment. Thanks anyway, best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

File:ImperialGuardCadians.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ImperialGuardCadians.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 5 December 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) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock

 * Are you still blocked? I am not showing an active autoblock. Syrthiss (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm no longer autoblocked, but I was offline from just after I posted this to now, so it was probably lifted or timed out in the meantime. -- saberwyn 20:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, they only exist for 24 hours. If this starts to happen more often, we can look into getting you an IP block exemption. Syrthiss (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney armament
Why did you change guns on HMAS Sydney from Mk XI to Mk VI ? Mk VI was 1880s stuff, Mk XI is definitely correct. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the source I had on hand (cited in article) said. -- saberwyn 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to quote obvious misprints. Look at the photograph, it shows a Mk XI gun, looks nothing like a Mk VI. The Mk XI guns from Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne were all deployed for coast defence in the 1930s, there are many photographs. See specs for Chatham class and Mk XI gun. Mk VI was superseded for naval use by 1892. Etc. I've corrected the Sydney article. Regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I don't know the first thing about ships' guns, and I had no other sources on hand to compare it to. Can you provide an inline citation, for completeness? -- saberwyn 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've added a good official reference which includes almost for all British naval guns used in WWI. Regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)