User talk:Benea - Knowledge

1403:

frigates do, and so do many of the smaller ships. But there have been over 15,000 ships in the Royal Navy in its history. If there are still red links it is because we are still working on this mammoth task to research and write their articles. Commissioned warships are considered notable, therefore they should be redlinked in anticipation of the time their article will be written. What they should not be done is externally linked. I'm sorry if you disagree, but the policies are quite clear on this. If you want to take on some of this effort, to put your money where your mouth is, as you say, then please feel free to contribute in this way.Or if you would prefer to build content in existing articles, feel free as well, but as a courtesy, please don't assume that other people are in the wrong by not rushing to fill every red link they create. Or that not expanding an article beyond a stub is worse than having no article. People choose to contribute in different ways, and the fact that you can now expand an article like HMS Asia with snippets of your own information is testament to the fact that someone went ahead and created an article from a redlink, that you can now edit yourself. That article previously only had one source, now it has several. Knowledge is expanding slowly over time. There's no rush, and no need to say 'well, an article hasn't been written in the time wikipedia has been in existence, therefore it never will be written.'

1418:

doesn't mean that I will never get to it. I have found that I sometimes benefit from red links that I or others have inserted when I write an an article, click on "What links here", and find that some officer or other vessel's history has intersected with the history of the one I worked on and perhaps has something that I can incorporate. Red links also, as Benea has suggested, sometime get me intrigued and I follow up and write an article. (By chance, I am working on one now.) As for the notability of some smaller vessels - all I can say is that they can often surprise you. It is not unusual for some of these vessels to have a quite striking incident of some sort in their history. Lastly, on the subject of Michael Phillips and Paul Benyon, I salute their work, and use it for guidance for incidents to look for, but try to avoid citing them. I discovered early on that Phillips never cites his sources and that Benyon rarely does unless he links to James. The problem is, when someone doesn't cite their sources, citing them does not provide verifiability. With Phillips, I would estimate that 98% of his material comes from the

3213:

replied, 'Choose yourself, my lord, the same spirit actuates the whole profession; you cannot choose wrong.' That seems to have been only a gesture, however, for Nelson then sat down and carefully selected the ships that he most wanted to take with him, dictating them to Barham's secretary. One of them, personally selected by Nelson, was the Temeraire." (Willis, p. 181) While he would be expected to integrate Collingwood's existing ships if only because the British were heavily outnumbered at least initially, flag officers had wide latitude in taking particular followers and requesting particular officers to be assigned to their command. Nelson would have been restricted by which ships were actually available and could be detached from other commands, or made ready for sea, but he was able to select from a reasonable pool of ships. Incidentally, the sense of officer privileged could hamper a commander like Nelson. When Calder returned home for his court-martial, Nelson could have made him sail in a small ship. Instead he felt obliged to defer to Calder's feelings, and allowed him to depart in the powerful

1006:

the useful timbers would have made burning her a foolish proposition. Anson notes that he arranged her purchase specifically to break her up for her parts, which "would be useful in refitting the other ships, and which were at present very scarce in the squadron..." As to more details, Heaps couldn't add more than a very basic summary, no launch dates at all. Colledge similarly only notes that she had been hired in 1739, i.e. before the Anson expedition, and was purchased in 1741, i.e. by Anson at Juan Fernandez, and that she was scuttled on 28 August off Juan Fernandez. The Lloyd's Register for 1764 lists numerous ships named Anna or some variation on it, and I know from experience how easy it is to confuse one ship of the same name for another. But if you really have the

3379:

write an article, especially on a disambiguation page. Red links are dead ends. Red links are for articles once existing and then pulled, in the topics I read. I will go back to the other format for now, especially because I can make clear that the one article titled HMS Peacock needs 1806 in parentheses following it. When you write those articles, then please do use the template again on the disambiguation page. For now, the disambiguation will point to two articles and four ships listed by year built and year demolished. I am going through the Patrick O'Brian books, with many HMS listed, and most of the time, the usual link brackets are used, by others, who make lists of every ship mentioned in a particular novel, British, American, French, or other nations. --

1431:

origins are occluded. Rif Winfield provides outstanding info, but he is occasionally incorrect, or incomplete, either because he cannot cover every incident, or because the Admiralty records he drew on are themselves are incorrect or incomplete. Sometimes I find myself taking an incident from a history I am working on and plugging it into a stub, or disambig page. I grant that this can make some articles look disjointed, but it may save someone a little work later. Net-net, different people work in different ways, and that's alright. Some, like Benea, like to write one good, complete article after another. I prefer to write small articles about obscure vessels, and filling in bits where I can. Regards,

1317:

requirement that if you add a redlink you must create an article for it within a set amount of time, or that I must have a minimum amount of varied sources to do so. Incidentally, I do have many sources, you will find that many ship articles of this period were created by me, as are the articles of quite a few of the men who commanded or served aboard them. My work includes most of the featured articles on the ships of this period. I say this not to try and intimidate you, but to suggest that I do know how ship articles should and shouldn't be written. I'll say incidentally that as far as Benyon's and Phillips' sites go, though useful, they have some significant limitations and may not pass as

3569:) I requested more eyes, and simply noted what you had been doing. I did not accuse you of vandalism there, or indeed on this page, I simply said "If you continue to delete valid red links, after having been pointed to relevant guideline that shows red links are acceptable, then it will start being treated as vandalism." - if you continue to make edits that the community has identified as being unhelpful and against wikipedia guidelines, then that does become vandalism, and I was asking you to desist rather than have things reach that stage. I have no intention of smearing you, as you put it (indeed your accusation that I have been doing so is insulting), but if you fail to engage with 489:

Cadiz blockade, with Captain Thomas Troubridge commanding the inshore squadron. When Sir Roger Curtis arrived at the fleet in May with a squadron, Troubridge was ordered to take his squadron into the Mediterranean, and Curtis's squadron took over the blockading duties. Mazarredo did not leave Cadiz in 1798, he did manage to put to sea in May 1799 when the blockading squadron under Lord Keith put into Gibraltar to cover Admiral Bruix's fleet as it passed into the Mediterranean, but Mazarredo's ships suffered heavy damage in a storm and put into Cartagena. I'll take this erroneous information out of his article, and cast my eye over the other two that you've written. Best,

3439:"Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." Preceding is a quote from the lead on your Redlink page. Are you going to write those articles? You never said, it would be good to know the answer. Please do not smear my name as you did at 3201:

actually the last to be launched. The first to be launched and to enter service is Neptune. Some historians (e.g. Winfield) use the first criteria to give a name to the class. Others (e.g. Lavery) use the second. As an aside, all of the second rates were reclassified during the period of their existence; as 12pdr class Second Rates in 1808, and as 104-gun First Rates in February 1817. Of course for all three this was entirely theoretical, all had been placed in ordinary/reclassified into other roles before their reclassification as first rates, and none returned to active service.

3444:

is not worth all this kind of talk. I do not really understand why you are reacting with so much anger turned into accusations and smears of me and now threats. Accusations of what? Using a different format in editing to reach the same page, is that what has you angry? I am quite willing to communicate, but not with someone who is on the attack at me. It is clear we have different view points on a small point. I do not vandalize articles. I am sorry that this has made you so angry, but threats and accusations are not the way to go. --

1523:

you want them to be well written, so it is unreasonable to condemn the volunteers here for having failed to fill all of them in by now. I'm disappointed that I cannot persuade you to take the long view of this, but I'm happy to assume at least that you plan to leave the current situation unchanged. If you find the concept that there are many redlinks and as yet no one is planning to write them too uncomfortable, then I might suggest that you let us worry about that, and you can continue to contribute as you prefer to.

2262: 3936: 1068: 2017: 367:, from the age of Nelson, Vice-Admiral of the Red. Would you help me to find more information about him? I think he took part during the blockade of the french fleet at Brest, and that was present in many sea engagements between the french and british fleets. Such an able seaman deserves to be mentioned in the Trafalgar Campaign. By the way, I think his dad died fighting a french ship off Madeira in 1762, although the year seems contradictory. Greetings ^_^ 5372: 5320: 5215: 5163: 5111: 5022: 4861: 4753: 4542: 4810: 5441: 3759: 2985: 2878: 2754: 2452: 1915: 1824: 1695: 1192: 1098: 738: 541: 272: 5286: 5078: 4645: 3982: 2176:

internet source wouldn't stand up as a reliable source. I've edited the template which should remove any reference to an Immortalite class, and I've removed the erroneous detail from Bristol, as well as a section that had been copied and pasted from another internet source. I think this should have got rid of any claims of an Immortalite class, since it was only on that ship page (when I looked) that such claims were being made. Best!

4931: 401:

incidentally though. He was involved in a fairly controversial episode in 1796, when in command of a detached squadron, he disobeyed orders and left the Mediterranean to return to Britain. He was ordered to strike his flag and never had an active command again. His father, you are right to say, was killed in command of the Milford while capturing a French privateer in 1762. You've made a very good start, I'll add what little I can.

21: 4130: 2837: 633: 967:

the coincidence that the date is the day after the arrival is potentially significant, the historical record may reflect that information. I agree she was probably broken-up, but most likely the hulk was burnt, but will need to look at the sources, Glynn says broken-up and I think Pack says burnt? Do you have the source that only "one or two" of Gerrard's crew petitioned? Many thanks for your assistance!

3489:

learning and opening up communications, which is all a person can do seeing changes reverted with no explanation on a talk page. I can see his perspective, but I do not think he sees mine, and so it is, but it is calmer now, and he has his article as he wants it, red links intact. The proper title of the existing articles shows up, not hidden in what some editors call an 'Easter egg', so all is well. --

3609: 4596: 4435: 4131:

http://translate.google.co.il/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&u=http://he.wikipedia.org/%25D7%259E%25D7%25AA%25D7%25A0%25D7%2593%25D7%2591%25D7%2599_%25D7%2594%25D7%2599%25D7%2599%25D7%25A9%25D7%2595%25D7%2591_%25D7%259C%25D7%25A6%25D7%2599_%25D7%2594%25D7%259E%25D7%259C%25D7%259B%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599_%25D7%2594%25D7%2591%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%2598%25D7%2599&prev=search

3405:, is not something for discussion in this context. It is a guideline on wikipedia, and you are expected to follow it. The description, in a nutshell, is "Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. 5389:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5337:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5232:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5180:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5128:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5039:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 4878:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 4770:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 4561:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 3158: 1610:

there are a multitude of documentary sources), the materiality of HMS Dover is not so strong. I have commenced stubs on Knowledge, and the stubs have been marked with Notability tags soon thereafter. To that end, I have added to the article in question, using several sources of info, to elucidate as to why the subject is notable. Regards

3471:

greatly over-reacting to Benea's slightly exasperated but measured and polite response to your refusal to follow established WP policy. By repeatedly reverting his well-explained and completely correct reversions of our changes, you are committing something that approaches vandalism, no matter how well-intentioned your actions. Regards,

2036:. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Knowledge using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate 3714:. He's been bothering me for months and I recently resorted to requesting semi-protection. I see he's back at it, but what's interested me is that you've reacted within - literally - one minute of the vandalism taking place at completely different times of day. I was quite impressed. How do you do that? 3488:

Nice of you to step in for your friend. The HMS Peacock disambiguation page is much clearer now. From the perspective of one first encountering Benea, I find his demand that an editor check with him first rather than be bold in editing, is too much to ask. I posted to his talk page with the intent of

2617:

Sorry for the late reply. When you see the {{ brackets, what follows is a call to a template. If you wish to study and learn more about that particular template you can replace the {{ with the format 'Template:xxx' where xxx is the name of the template. For example the title of the template linked to

2426:

Sorry for the late reply, but yes, you are quite right I think. I had been working up the shiplist page as you will have seen, when the discrepencies between various sources started to occur to me. I did some more digging, and as you have seen, I think the correct result is as the page now shows. But

3573:

and continue making bad edits, then it is usual that things will be escalated and more opinions will be requested on your behaviour. If you wish to avoid that, please be prompt in engaging with editors after your bold edits are reverted, and do not restore your edits until consensus has been reached

3212:

The commanders of fleets, especially flag officers, had quite substantial powers, and Nelson was particularly caressed by the ministry. "It is reported that Barham asked Nelson which officers he wanted to accompany him, flourishing a Navy List and telling him to take his pick. Nelson is said to have

2712:

are also involved in the attack. At some point in the attack Burke is severely wounded in the shoulder by grapeshot. He dies later in Plymouth Hospital of a fever occasioned by his wound. He is said to have been the brother of Henry Burke, who became a lieutenant on 6 July 1796, was severely wounded

925:

Hi, I've written a piece on Anna, the store ship in Anson's squadron see Anna (ship). She was burnt at Juan Fernandez in 1741. On lloyds register there is an Anna Maria Margaretta listed as lost on 15 May 1741, the day she was burnt. I'm looking for more info, and also of her Master, Mr Gerrard. Can

3687:

One worry I had was that being an admin would mean less time for writing and too much time getting involved in disputes etc. It doesn't have to if you don't want it to. For me, having the tools means a few extra buttons which make editing easier, and the ability to step in an prevent small problems

3443:

talk page. I presented my views to you, thanked you on your talk page for finding a Knowledge template I could not find by my own searching. I would appreciate respectful dealings between us. I explained to you why I made the changes I made, politely, on your talk page. The HMS Peacock list article

3118:

myself that should explain the tactical rationale for those ships. A topic that the anonymous editor seems to have no knowledge of. Perhaps it will help future editors to reconstruct that article. I don't feel willing to do that myself, esp since there is so much wrong with it that it would perhaps

4956:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

3564:

page, and not a disambiguation one. Having been reverted, it was up to you to open discussions if you did not understand why you were. Instead, you reverted that article right back to restore your changes, even though, as you admitted on my talkpage, you did not understand the reasons why you were

3378:

Thanks for the link to template HMS, I was having trouble finding it to learn what the numbers meant, and now I see it is just a way to say what should be seen in the final copy, or what be typed after the pipe in the ordinary way to make wiki links. I do not agree that a red link is a reminder to

3208:

is happening is that Harvey is taking periods of parliamentary leave to go to London. Certainly within two days of Fawke having taken over, Harvey is speaking in parliament on naval matters. What might be happening is that Kelly commanded for a period, Harvey returned and resumed command, and then

3200:

The Dreadnought/Neptune question relates to how they've been classified by subsequent naval historians. The namesake of a ship class is usually the first ship to be built and enter service, but this class is a little different. The first to be ordered, laid down and named is Dreadnought, but she's

2622:. Details that follow the '|' are the optional parameters that you can feed into templates. This template allows you to display ship link titles using the HMS format correctly. There are explanations on that page for how to use the template effectively, and links to other similar templates such as 1522:

I feel you do users like Acad Ronin and others who do write ship articles a very great disservice by your statement. Their work is surely the evidence that these redlinks are being steadily filled in. But with as I have said, there are 15,000 ships to write, and by your previous statement I assume

1292:

the content of an already existing source, such as the websites of the late Michael Phillips, or Paul Benyon. (The more common name for total repetition is plagiarism, and I believe this is not allowed under the principles of Knowledge.) It is for this reason that I have restored the links. If you

1005:

that she was scuttled on 20 August 1741. I'd be surprised if she was burnt, Anson had been unwilling to fire the ships' guns in case they alerted any Spanish on the island to the presence of the British ships and word got out of their mission. Burning a ship would have certainly run that risk. And

966:

Hi, thanks for the reply. I was writing from memory, will get the online reference to the ship insurance record, you're right, can't have been Lloyds but another source of merchant vessel list, cannot recall which one, will get it later today from my other computer which has my search history, but

945:

is a different ship? And where have you found the reference? The first Lloyd's Register was only in 1764. As to Gerrard, or Gerard, there's not much I can find at first glance other than references to him in the accounts. He got 300 pounds from Anson for the purchase of his ship for stores though.

488:

Well spotted, it certainly wasn't Mann in 1798. The writer is almost certainly confusing this incident with de Langara's expedition in 1796. In 1798 it was elements of Lord St Vincent's fleet, which was covering the Atlantic coast of the Iberian peninsula. St. Vincent appears to have commanded the

4273: 3868:

when the ship as constructed through at least the start of WW II was driven by a triple expansion steam engine. I know of a number of ships that were converted to diesel so it is quite possible this ship had such a conversion. There is no mention or citation in the article indicating that. Do you

2564:

Hello Scribes, internal links made by using the square brackets (]) should only be to links within the english wikipedia, i.e. this site. External links, and the links to the other-language wikipedias should be avoided in text, as they take the reader out of this website unexpectedly, and in this

1798:

No problem, yes, there are a lot of interesting officers out there that don't have articles yet. Please keep up all the good work, and I'd be happy to do any fix up work. You would think a portrait would exist somewhere, but possibly in a private collection. I'll keep an eye out though, sometimes

3470:

Hi Prairieplant, Benea is completely correct re redlinks in a Setindex page. Furthermore, I find redlinks useful as an insertion point when I have prepared an article on a ship; not only do I insert there, but if saves me from having to change the Setindex page. As a third-party, I think you are

3335:

I put back my revisions, because only two of those ships named Peacock have articles written about them. Red link means there is no article, so I see no point in writing as if there is an article, and that is why I made those changes. If the pipe 6 does not mean sixth rate in that template, then

1609:

A well written dissertation's introduction should be clear to communicate to the reader as to why the subject is worthy of being covered. It is laudable to consider documenting every ship of the Royal Navy, but whilst there are strong reasons as to why HMS Bellerophen should have an article (and

1402:

For the first part of your reply, you are wholly wrong that nothing is being done to write articles, or that these articles will never be written. This time five years ago there were far fewer ship articles than exist now. Now every ship of the line of the age of sail has an article, many of the

1379:

I am also against the idea of creating stubs on insignificant vessels, for the sake of it, where the creator has plagiarised Rif Winfield or a similar single source, and has no substantiated intention of progressively updating said article using several sources. (Were a person to write about HMS

1349:

My use of external links had been done, given that nobody in the wider community has deemed the vessels to be significant enough to justify a wiki article, and that one source of info is better than no source of info. It is not being done to "trick" people. In the specific instances, nothing was

1284:

I can totally see the point of taking out links to external articles if wiki articles already exist. I do not see the point in adding redline links to a non-existent article, unless the person who has done that action is going to commit themselves to populate those articles to a B-Class level of

3729:

Purely by chance as it happens. It's just come up when I've happened to refresh my watchlist, and I've been able to revert straight away. Had the changes been made at a different time, they might have sat around for longer, though hopefully someone would catch it before too long. Yes, he's been

2548:

To help me better understand Knowledge concepts will you please let me know why you removed the link to the German article about the Philippine frigates subject to the cutting out operation off Santa Cruz? Is there a taboo about linking to pages in another language? I thought that page to be of

1430:

that aren't online, and the rest I just don't know. As for PBenyon, his stuff seems to come from newspaper archives to which he has access that I don't, so I cannot find the original source. I don't question the existence of sources for either website, I am just not happy citing something whose

1417:

Hi All, I second Benea on this. First, I often put in red links. Frequently in researching one vessel I also have info on other vessels. This is especially true with respect to prizes when several ships share. That doesn't mean that I intend to get to it soon; it may not be a priority, but that

2401:

in connection with the first shipments of aircraft to Australia and Java December 1941-January 1942. Specifically the ship is noted as carrying sixty-seven crated P-40s that were quite important in those early days. Several of the sources cite the ship as being 4,996 tons—a figure matching the

2175:

Hello Rif, hope you and yours are very well! Sorry to have been slow in replying, been on a bit of an extended wikibreak. I've had a look at the different sources, and consulted the internet source the article on Bristol seemed to have been based on. I agree with your concerns, and frankly the

1316:

placed in the body of the article and masquerading as internal wikipedia links are most certainly not fine. You should not be tricking readers into thinking there is an article on wikipedia and then have that link suddenly and unexpectedly take them to a different website entirely. There is no

1491:

The comment 'you are wholly wrong ... that these articles will never be written' is a very general comment. With reference to the aforementioned wikipedia policy, and the specific redline articles in the HMS Asia article, there is currently no substantive evidence that these will ever become

400:

Thank you Pietje, Mann is a very interesting character, I had often thought of writing an article on him myself, but lacked some important details. I'd be happy to add to what you've already got, the nmm has a fine portrait of him incidentally. Mann was not involved in the Trafalgar Campaign

3574:

for the changes. Finally, editing talk pages like this to remove valid comments and requests is bad form, though comments on that page will be archived after a little time has past. Again, if you wish to avoid requests for comment on your behaviour, please be stricter in following

3355:

to understand why it is fine to use redlinks in these instances, and indeed that they should be used there. Those articles will be written at some point and then they would be blue links. The pipe 6 does not mean sixth rate, it is part of the template formatting codes, please see

3306:"This is untrue - this was made up by someone who was sacked but whose dad is an Admiral in the Navy. The Navy have agreed there is no proof that this allegation is true. Usual lies made up by the same papers who accused Liverpool Hillsborough victims of theft.....enough said." 3409:

unless you are certain that Knowledge should not have an article on that subject." You are incorrect that "Red links are for articles once existing and then pulled". And it is not required that an article must be written for there to be a link to it. That article page is a

1583:

I do feel uneasy about redlinks in articles: 'do not create lists or other pages in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged either to write the article first or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten

3734:. Blocks are going to be difficult since it's a rotating ip address, so unfortunately we may have to look at semi-protection once more, unless he gets tired of it. Or perhaps being reverted instantly is going to make him think there's no point in continuing it any more. 3414:

page, not a disambiguation page incidentally. I'm afraid this is becoming disruptive editing. If you continue to delete valid red links, after having been pointed to relevant guideline that shows red links are acceptable, then it will start being treated as vandalism.

1339:

I keep coming across redlink articles, where the link was created a long time ago, and the person who created the link has deemed that the subject is worthy of an article, yet is not prepared to "put their money where their mouth is" by creating and researching said

1359:

The maxim "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created" was therefore deemed to apply in the instance when the external linkages were inserted. I am more comfortable with plain text names, rather than links to articles which will never be

3998:. Also, there's no evidence that probertencyclopaedia.com is the copyright holder of the image. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. 1037:

It probably is a coincidence, but interesting it was the day after Anna arrived in Juan Fernandez. I'm pulling the Admiralty records Glyn Williams references regarding the planning of the voyage to see if I can find details of Anna, her owners and Master there.

3517:

I would very much appreciate if the smears (charges of vandalism) on the Talk page of Wiki Project ships could be deleted. (earlier I misidentified the talk page where you place your smears, now I have it correct.) This issue is settled here on your talk page,

4836:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

840:(1800), with supporting redirects, on the grounds that hybrid names are confusing and that generally ship articles should bear the name of the first incarnation. Keyswanger prefers the move he initiated, arguing that the vessel means more to the Chileans than 5469: 2357:

I know, the correct writing of the name Goetzen is very controversial, but I think, the family von Goetzen will know it at the best. So, if you want to know the correct writing of the name, look at his tombestone in Hamburg or look on this youtube film

3288:

Dear Bunnylover, I'm afraid it is in the nature of wikipedia that anyone can edit articles, and you aren't really able to tell other people not to edit them. On the Sarah West page, the allegations are being reported in a wide number of news outlets

1369:

There are ship articles out there which do need extra sourced content added. It seems far better to have time spent on this (i.e. beefing up the content from HMS Asia from existing sources), than to set up links to articles that will never get

3895:, and it now doesn't appear to function properly at the start. Your technical proficiency being much better than mine, can you correct whatever error I've made please? The data I have inserted are correct (I could cite my forthcoming book on 447:

Mazarredo quitted Cadiz with 22 ships of the line, 3 frigates and the French frigate La Vestal, chasing the British squadron blockading Cadiz, consisting of 9 ships of the line and some frigates under Vice-Admiral Robert Mann, who managed to

4043:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

3217:. In another example, Philip Durham, another officer specially requested by Nelson for his fleet was asked by Calder to return with him to give evidence. Durham refused, a breach of etiquette perhaps, but he was within his rights to do so. 3565:

reverted. I pointed you to the relevant guidelines, on which your response was to say that you did not agree with them, and promptly again restored your erroneous changes. At this point I was firm on the issue, and to avoid an edit war (

4204:

will appear on the Main Page soon. Does the article need more work before its day on the Main Page? I had to squeeze the summary down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank

3630:

You folks are big on the threat business. All the articles are changed to the way you like them, so the topic is finished and done. Whatever lessons there were to learn, have been learned by me. I hope it is the same for you. Bye.

4081:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in

2682:

Thank you Benea - about the info about Lt Bruke not being on the HMS Mars but HMS Doris - have transfered the info over. Do you have any other information about Lt Burke (am only interested due to the link with Walter Burke !)

1782:

Thanks for your many links, cats, edits, detail and corrections on Admiral Whitaker. Seems like a fairly important guy but oddly no article and no painting I can find. Still a much more professional article thanks to your help

2141:

Can you kindly correct the entries for these five frigates (including the templates at the bottom of their respective pages, which I don't know how to do)? The actual composition of these classes are set out in the article

1996: 458:, both great admirals. You've free will to improve them ;) As far as I know, Boyle's frigate, the Seahorse, had a very interesting career in the Royal Navy. I'm surprised there's not an article about that ship yet. Cheers 4718:. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the 2338:, about "one of the most famous ships of the Royal Navy during the age of sail, a fame that endured through the legacy of Turner's painting, making her second only to HMS Victory in the history of the Nelsonic Navy"! -- 4711:

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on

4840:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

4391:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1557:

A concluding comment. For HMS Asia, I will leave the situation unchanged. Your assertion is correct, I am indeed uncomfortable about redlinks where as yet nobody is planning to write them in a defined period of

3668:

I always umm and ahh over this. There are things I'd find it useful for I know, and I wouldn't mind getting stuck in a bit more. I've never gathered enough momentum though to go through the nomination process.

2687:

Hello David, there's not a lot of information on the junior Walter Burke readily to hand, but I'll tell you what I know. He appears to have been commissioned a lieutenant on 19 May 1800. I'm not sure why the

2406:

from June to war zone six months later is possible, but certainly a very new ship. The 1940 date pretty well nails the fact the ship involved was the still relatively new C3 and not the earlier 4,996 ton

5089: 445:

Hello Benea. I got a little question for you. Do you know what British commander blockaded Cadiz in 1798? In the article of spain's admiral Mazarredo, it can be read the following confusing content:

1957: 5068: 3804: 4669:; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Knowledge. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: 776: 646: 3149:

has been translated in french. During the nomination procedure for good article status (GA) on french project, few questions has come into attention. Do you have any informations about it ?

1740: 5297: 3688:

growing into bigger ones when necessary. I find the ability to protect articles is a very useful tool for getting editors to discuss issues. Should you decide to run, I'm sure you'd pass.

316: 990:, on their own petition, they being extremely averse to sailing in the same ship with their old master, on account of some particular ill usage they conceived they had suffered from him. 3360:

for documentation on how this template works. Again, if you are unsure how a template works, going to that template's page is a good start as there will usually be usage documentation.

132: 3522:, and need not be spread across other articles than the one at issue, which was HMS Peacock, and the topic at issue, links and red links. I am not an editor who vandalizes articles. -- 4314: 5120: 2932: 2850: 4124:

I used google translate for the original Hebrew Link , but its translation is bad. It can provide the story but it is far from proper way. I can help on hebrew and critical words.

5456: 4919: 4616:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

4357:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

1034: 5105: 4611: 2049: 5381: 5366: 5329: 2067:

Do you think you can fix some erroneous entries for me. If you look at entries for British wooden-hulled screw frigates, you will see that there are references to a so-called

1380:

Dover, a vessel which is not as significant as say HMS Amphion, then certainly it would be challenging to find other sources). It sounds as though we have some common ground.

626: 1293:

can provide substantive evidence that the progressive course of action, as outlined in the previous paragraph, is going ahead, I will unequivocally undo said action. Regards

5276: 4870: 2317: 941:

Are you sure she was burnt? Anson writes that she was broken up, and in September rather than May? She only reached Juan Fernandez on 16 August, so I would assume that this

5314: 5289: 5278: 4953: 4938: 4924: 4855: 4762: 3976: 4497: 4193: 5016: 4590: 4553: 4175:, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on 2299: 2276: 1492:

articles. Were there the case that a redline ship article cleanup were in place, this would be different, but these specific articles are awaiting creation, or Godot.

4747: 4639: 2830: 2569:, I'd suggest you added a translated version on the action with the frigates to our own article on the battle, and then link to the appropriate section if you wish. 677: 4945:, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Knowledge having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated. 4352: 5418: 4534: 4344: 4179:

and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —

4116: 3990: 3304:, etc), and while you may say that these are lies, I'm afraid the sources support what the article says. Please stop removing cited information, your reasoning of 5100: 4999: 3814: 3749: 3293: 5513: 5209: 2137:"class". And incidentally, William Symonds (who left office in 1848) never had anything to do with the designs for any of these screw frigates of the 1850s! 216: 5508: 4625: 4338: 4244:

I am thoroughly uneducated on such things, being an American; that's precisely the kind of thing I would pester Ben about. Will see if I can scare him up.

728: 577: 3827:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

517:

Hello, I was on a long wikibreak and just now noticed your contribution with the piece on the Flagmen of Lowestoft. Nice work. I love those images. Best,

4287:

You haven't been around lately, so may not see this for a while. But congratulations on yet another excellent piece of work in today's featured article,

3268: 1685: 666: 573: 222: 3560:, you had misinterpreted the use of the template and had therefore added inaccurate information to the page, and you were not aware that this was not a 3296: 2159:

series, which will be published early in 2014 and will cover all RN vessels of 1817-1863, including the early steam vessels). Many thanks! Regards, Rif.

3133: 2595:- {{HMS|Thisbe|1783|6}}. What are its parameters please? If there's some documentation on it would you please point me its right direction. Thank you. 262: 4998:

for September 11, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at

2389:

with a specific date, delivery "8-Jun-41" in a time and USMC # ordered sequence, that is also found in some other sources. Now after checking Lloyd's

832:. The article was originally Chilean ship Lautaro (1818), the date reflecting her entry into the Chilean navy, after her service as the East Indiaman 5157: 4493: 4194: 3556:- Bold, revert, and discuss. You were bold in your edits of this page, you were reverted because, as I pointed out, you were in the wrong as regards 3299: 986:; as that ship had buried the greatest number of men, in proportion to her complement. But afterwards, one or two of them were received on board the 450:(!) Who was blockading the port? I don't think it was Mann... Well, apart from that, I'm pleased to inform you that I've created these two articles: 4982: 2692:

calls him 'of the Mars'. He may have served aboard this ship earlier in his career, or it may be a mistake. By July 1801 he is a lieutenant on the

1862: 5152: 4742: 3191: 2863: 2591:

Thanks for the explanation. Another question if I may... my searches haven't disclosed documentation for the form of link you substituted for the

5413: 4619: 4141: 3351:

Dear Prairieplant, if you did not understand why I made those changes, it would perhaps have been better to ask first. First of all, please read

2868: 5309: 4634: 4168: 4111: 4001:

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

5361: 4485: 2501: 4914: 4420: 4149: 4046: 4022: 5063: 3030: 814: 5490: 4794: 3851: 650:

and respond there as soon as possible. I just have a minor query on the image license, so would appreciate you having a look at it, please

238: 4799: 4585: 2397:

listing have changed years) also lends support to another glitch in several otherwise reliable sources. Several official histories mention

583: 353: 5261: 4210: 3605:. Suggest it is probably very near time to start handing out some high level warnings. Should they not be heeded, then we know what to do 4528: 4010: 3196:

Dear LTIR, these are good questions, I'll do what I can to answer them, though I'm afraid I don't have many of my usual sources to hand.

3128: 950:, though apparently only 'one or two' out of the ten men that hard formed the crew of the pink. I'll try and dig a little deeper though. 5256: 4025:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 2970: 1905: 1182: 4365: 4071: 3942: 3935: 3923: 3531: 3498: 3453: 3098: 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 4850: 3260:

Benea - please stop editing the Sarah West page. I know the whole thing and know its a lie - why would you punish someone like this?

3249: 1772: 704:

I also added an alternate hook that I think is more interesting and I added alot more content and references to the article. Cheers, —

4833: 4822: 4705: 4680: 4121:

I wonder if you can pick up the glove?, The story of Jewish Royal Navy Volunteers from Palestine in WW2 During the British Mandate .

4091: 3480: 3230: 2143: 5204: 1052:

UPDATE: Sorry my mistake, Anna was aproaching Socorro in mid-May your right. Very unlikely there is a link. Sorry for the confusion.

4332: 2721:

from June 1802, and was lost with her when she disappeared at sea in February 1805. From this, and a reading of the wording of the

2565:

case, to one in a foreign language. Given that the section you want to link to is a fairly small part of the German article on the

888: 870: 128: 5401: 5349: 5244: 5192: 5140: 5051: 4890: 4782: 4573: 3640: 1501: 1440: 5269:

Hi Benea, just wondering whether you would be able to add a date to the two sentences at the end of the section dealing with the

2566: 1946: 1933: 1226: 1210: 1132: 959: 722: 3587: 3424: 3388: 3369: 3321: 2185: 415:

Dear Benea, thank you for the information & your contributions. I've created another article that you may find interesting:

4920: 4370: 3786: 3777: 3345: 1808: 836:, launched in 1800. Keysanger moved the article to reflect the launch year. Essentially, I would prefer to move the article to 467: 391: 4220:—I don't think Ben has been around in ages, but I'll try emailing him. I can look over the article (and the blurb) next week. 2393:

where the fact the ship is listed supports 1940 and the next two years with 1940 listed (note three other Mormac ships in the

910: 5081: 5070: 4704:

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject,

3327: 3049: