Welcome!

Hello, Rcbutcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Also, I notice you have an interest in Irish history. Be sure and visit the Irish Wikipedians' notice board and WikiProject Ireland, where you might find topics and discussions of interest to you. + Ceoil 13:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create a copy of this article James Daly with a new title? If you wanted to move the old article, this is not the way to do it, because the edit history gets lost. Is that what you're trying to do? Fan-1967 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do is request an admin to delete the page you just created, then use "move" to move the James Daly article to this title, the way you did with the Talk page. That way the edit history goes with the article, and the legal folks insist edit history is very important to the GFDL, though I'm not super clear on why. Fan-1967 01:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've put it back the way it was, together with history. Nothing lost I hope. I was trying to create a disambiguation page, to separate the actor from other James Dalys such as an Irish politician. I'll do what you suggest - get an admin to delete James Daly (American Actor) and the "move" James Daly to James Daly (American Actor). I will then create a new disambiguation page for James Daly and change any links to the correct page. Sorry about the trouble. Rcbutcher 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Talk page back, and tagged both the article and Talk page at James Daly (American Actor) for deletion. Once an admin deletes them, we can move the article and Talk, and then turn the old page into a DAB page. Fan-1967 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actor's page has been moved, and I took your disambiguation version and put it at James Daly. All that's left for you to do is create James Daly (Irish Politician) so we've got two articles to disambiguate between. Fan-1967 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting that out, I'll be more respectful before I mess with other people's pages in future. Rcbutcher 05:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on QF 4.5 inch Howitzer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cmprince 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:AlfredRobertWilkinsonVC.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ShakespeareFan00 10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:BucquoyCrossroads.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:4.5inchHowitzerComouflaged1917.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:4.5HowitzerComouflaged1917.jpg. The copy called Image:4.5HowitzerComouflaged1917.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 12:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SettingStokesBombFuses.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:SettingSokesBombFuses.jpg. The copy called Image:SettingSokesBombFuses.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:FrankHurleyCamouflagedAustralian18pounder.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:FrankHurleyCamouflagedAustralian18ponder.jpg. The copy called Image:FrankHurleyCamouflagedAustralian18ponder.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Round 18 Pdr Shrapnel.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:QF13pounderShrapnelShell.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:42ndDivisionBadgeWWII.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:18pdrs3rdYpres1917.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case it's not on your watchlist, I responded to your comment from back in August here. You are most probably right that the photo is by Ernest Brooks, not Ashmead-Bartlett. 121.44.231.9 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there are photos showing both types there. I suspect the 26 cwt were 17 Siege Bty.Nfe (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tried, first image I uploaded was deleted - no explanation, no message, so I don't think I'll bother. Sue Wallace (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your reversion problem on VP, try WP:TW. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the suggestion. But I raised the issue regarding other people who had made reversions, not myself - some others have only reverted the most recent malicious edit and not noticed the ones before that. So my suggestion was that a warning or reminder could be built into the reversion process. Many people will click revert and assume they've done all that's necessary.Rcbutcher (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody keeps running a robot to change all occurrences of Fuze to Fuse in Shell (projectile). Fuze is the customary English language spelling for ammunition igniters. Fuses are something in an electrical layout.Rcbutcher (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my apologies. I had looked this one up in a dictionary, and it didn't indicate the distinction; I guess it just wouldn't have that sort of specialised knowledge. In any case, I've removed the fuze->fuse entry from my bot. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Edit summary reminder
		Hello. I noticed that your edit to HMS Belfast (C35) did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks, -MBK004 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have just answered your request. Please see my talk page. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the main its the Referencing , butthere is not a lot of work required to bring them upto B Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI DumbBOT completed your copyvio nomination of Image:Mark_Ryan_Fenian.jpg. In future, please skip the tag on the Image's Talk page. It's redundant and it creates additional housekeeping on WP:CV. Thanks. -- Robocoder (t|c) 03:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million, still struggling with proper editing!--Murat (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Different names given by two sides is confusing. Turkish sources refer to two Kirte battles and two Kerevizdere battles and one Sigindere. This is the Kirte one, not Kerevizdere. My apologies.--Murat (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I admire the work you have done. This was such an interesting front, and there were not many good Turkish references available until recently so I will do my best to fill in some of the blanks. Cheers.--24.46.20.158 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I can tell the difference between the two gun tubes and agree it is easy to distinguish them. However, in the particular photo in the article, since the tube is in full recoil, I don't see how you can tell. Furthermore, the very next photo, showing the 540 mm tube, is probably the very same mortar. Look at the camouflage pattern, the terrain, and the munitionschlepper parked next to the mortar. I suspect the two photos were taken as part of the same session; thus is it highly likely that the lead photo shows a karl with the 540 mm tube. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rcbutcher, I saw that you just added an Articles for Deletion (AfD) nomination for the Vickers Type 40 mm AT/AA Gun article. Just letting you know that I added a tag to the top of the article, and created a specific AfD discussion page for your nomination so it's listed properly. Otherwise, the formatting doesn't work with our AfD logs that have a list of the currently-nominated articles for deletion.

In the future, so you know, to list an article for deletion: first add the template {{subst:afd1}} to the top of the article that you want to nominate. Follow the instructions from there, after clicking on the "Preloaded debate" link. For the full instructions, see this.

Just letting you know about that. If you have any other questions, feel free to reply here or ask me on . Have a nice day, and happy editing! :-) Jamie^☆S93 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree. The fact that there's no preposition is irrelevant, a red herring. It is indeed a subordinate clause, but the subject of that clause is "he". The verb is "had [never] ceased to respect" and the object is "whom". Menzies had never ceased to respect Chifley. Thus, it's "he" and not "him" because this represents Menzies, the subject, the doer of the action, who's nominative. The recipient of the action is Chifley. Being the object, Chifley, or words that represent him, are in objective case. "Who/whom" represents Chifley. The objective case of "who" is "whom". Thus it has to be "whom". -- JackofOz (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, Thank you for your message. I've posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Continual vandalism by school kids to battle pages to see if the that project had a friendly admin who could be rather more interventionist. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't panic, it's not going to be deleted! Quite the opposite. I've not deleted this here because it's not obvious to me that this image is suitable for commons. There it needs to be PD in the UK and PD in the US. It clearly is PD in the US, but not so for the UK. If this isn't clear, please drop me a note. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you, but at least one admin on commons takes another view. I'll go ahead and delete it. Hopefully we won't need to undelete it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if images of artillery for sale on eBay can be used in Wikipedia. It seems to me they are by definition non-copyrighted given they are being sold--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can only use images if the copyright has expired. The British Government claimed Crown Copyright over all the official World War I era photographs for its forces and equipment, which only lasted for 50 years. So it all expired by 1969. US military images are free of copyright as the US government does not claim copyright for its own photographs or those of its servicemen. French and German copyright applies until 70 years after the death of the photographer if we know who he was. If the photographer is not known, I thinks it's 70 years after the photograph was taken. Anybody is free to sell a photograph, but when you buy it you don't buy the copyright - that remains with the photograp[her or his employer. So if it's still in copyright, you can do anything with it except copy it or put it online. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further note : I think it is possible to obtain the copyright to an image you purchase, if this is granted in writing by the seller : the seller must own the copyright, which may be difficult to prove. A typical case could be the legal inheritor of the personal effects of the photographer, e.g. son/daughter etc... I would expect the purchase price of such an original photograph with copyright to be much higher than for a photograph only, assuming the photograph has some significance. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion before the move, not according to discussion page. This looks like a very aribitary move in that it should have gone to a discussion since it could have been contested. The replacement is very poor - hasn't even been categorized. Fancy instigating procedures? I'll try and make the current bodge usable in the short term.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I am trying to get this article to GA status and given your area of interests, thought you may be interersted in helping. Cheers, Spy007au (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add about the specific details. But I know that Xavier Herbert's Capricornia included this theme, and ends leaving the future of meat-packing in the NT open but hopeful.. Herbert's theme was that the NT was different from Australia, was more a fringe of Asia.. that its inclusion in the Commonwealth was somehow artificial, and its status unsatisfactory.. that the NT was being ripped-off.. he plays with idea of outsiders blowing in and being good or bad for the locals.. his dodgy lawyer brought in from down south defeats the local powerbroker to the benefit of locals, perhaps a deliberate inversion of recent events with the difference being that the locals brought in the outsiderr to do their own bidding.. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on RML 7 inch Armstrong gun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. DARTH PANDA^duel 05:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I removed your improper AfD. Please read WP:AfD for more information about nominating articles for deletion. Second, I nominated the article for a speedy deletion. See WP:CSD for more information. By the way, if you wanted the page to be renamed, there should be a tab labeled "move" that allows you to rename your article. Thanks! If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to let me know! DARTH PANDA^duel 05:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just noticed a few edits of yours here and on commons. You must have a strong interest in forts and bunkers in Sydney :-Adam (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [[1]] may be of interest to you. It's a mildly vandalizing user i'm overwatching for other reasons and i saw you addressed this issue on the talk pages in the past. I largely agree with your point, but see it as subjective, and while i see that user as a trouble maker, i don't see the change as sufficiently degrading (the anzacs et al are still listed) to revert this one. You might see it differently (or not). The editor in question is not amenable to reason, but since most of his edits have to do with fighting the age old battles between "persia" and "arabia" he'll probably swiftly move on. Regards.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see edits like that as malicious or valdalism, more as a contribution in fact.. similar to folks who change Vimy Ridge to Canadian Victory and then somebody else changes it to Allied Victory.. others insist on changing Stalemate to Pyrric Victory etc.. they aren't actually damaging the article, just asserting valid interpretations of minor details. What I really objected to was kids going in and inserting vulgar banalities, which to me is like pissing on gravestones. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly on top of these issues; I agree that whatever the difference in this case it's slight. The fyi was just in case there might be greater sensitivities over this than i was aware of (I view this user as vandalizing, not this particular edit, if that makes sense). Thanks for taking the time.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were asking about the position of one of the gun emplacements at Middle Head fort in This picture, well I think it could have been this one before it was possibly upgraded, or another gun emplacement located near by. Judging by the backround scenery I say they would have been close together. Have a look at my photo, on the left hand side behind the bushes you will see the hill that is on the far left in the black and white photo. If you have a look at the background scenery all the way along you will see that both photo match each other. Also the other gun emplacement at middle head, the one where I put the comparison photo on my talk page, well if you have a look at the background scenery in both photos you will notice that they also match each other. Have a closer look. Cheers . Adam (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also If you ever get to see the movie Stone (film) you will see that gun emplacement (my recent picture) used in one of the scenes in the movie. In the scene the head bikie used the gun emplacement at the bottom of the stairs as his bedroom (shared with his girlfriend), in the next scene you see him and his chick walk up those stairs and in the next scene following they initiate an undercover cop into their gang, check it out if you get the chance . Adam (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to drop by and leave a reminder that according to the MoS for articles related to ships here on wikipedia, the names of the ships are italicized. Please consider doing this from now on because the clean-up does take some time. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 20:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know that I have proposed that the Battle of Passchendaele be moved toThird Battle of Ypres. As you put the original redirect in place I wanted to let you know. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused as to your comments regarding the suggested move. We are clearly of the same opinion that naming the entire campaign after Passchendaele is just plain incorrect, but you noted that you are opposed to moving it to Third Ypres. I am happy to support either Third Battle in Flanders or Third Battle of Ypres but it is rather important that the Passchendaele name be abandoned so that true structure and format editing can begin on the article. Are you in agreement? Pass along your thoughts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, keep up the great work on the Canadian involvement ! I was trying to say that "Third Battle Of Ypres" is just the official name the British chose to give, and they weren't the only people there. Hence by using that name, Wikipedia to some extent ceases to be neutral. But we have to use some name, so as "Third Battle of Ypres" is most commonly used in the English language, I suppose that's what we should use. I would really like to see collaboration between French, German and Brit/Canadian/Aussie/NZ Wikipedians to make these articles representative of the views & experiences of all the combatatents.. that has started to happen with Turkish contributors on the Gallipoli articles. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I am in full agreement with you. I would personally love to see a fairer preservative given to all belligerents, especially the often demonized German side. I am frankly prepared to get behind any naming convention that proves better than the current one. You are right in that some name needs be chosen. I do find both Third Battle of Ypres and Third Battle of Flanders to be perfectly acceptable and am not partial to either one or the other.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the British term is The Battles of Ypres, 1917 which seems rather neutral.Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You may have a slight interest in some of the pics I have added to this article cheer. Adam (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And this picture of Dummond Battery in the aticle Drummond Battery. Adam (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just made a second trip to Illowra Battery. This time I went completely panoramic. Here have a look at these two below. Also later on I will upload a picture of the second gun emplacement. In this emplacement there is some kind of large steel hatch. I am guessing that it was used as some kind of back or front cover for the gun. When I upload I will place it here for you. Cheers . Adam (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• . Adam (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure if it was 1 or 2 gun emplacement but if you were facing south it would be the one on the left hand side. Also I wanted to get an after shot of the black and white photo you added to the top of the page, but couldn't because of the overgrown vegetation. Also I think the image with the green and white walls needs a little more height, top and bottom so it looks like another trip out there to try again . Adam (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just paid another visit to Hill 60/Illowra Battery. This time I took this pic 70 photos in One. I may also have a good before and after pic for you as well. I have also got photos for the Breakwater Battery article coming later. Adam (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come across information about the guns that were used at the breakwater battery and Illowra Battery saying that these guns were taken from navy boats that were going to be scrapped. That probably explains why that iron cover from a boat is in that gun emplacement at the Illowra battery. I also have a b and a photo of the same kind of cover in use at the Breakwater battery. I will upload over the next couple of days. Adam (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea but I am not one hundred percent sure. I have done a fair bit a searching on the web and have had difficulty finding further information on these forts. If we can find sufficient information on the Kembla fortress network it might be a good idea. It might also be a good idea to speak with the author (User:Newm30) of these articles as well. He is pretty good at finding information on these topics. Also these articles have very low traffic statistics. One thing I have done to improve this was to add a photo, the 70 photo stitch of Hill 60 to 2 other articles with a very high rate of hits per month, this in turn increased the amount of hits by about 50 a day (confirm 27th dec onwards), but has had nil effect on the other articles. If we combine these articles that would improve the statistics for the whole lot and allow for further expansion. First of all see what the author of these articles thinks about the move and I will see if I can find further info on Kembla fortress. Also do you know of any other forts around this area that have not been covered, do you also know of any other forts around Sydney or further north that we could write about (bunkers, forts, batteries,ect). Did you know that the Drummond Battery is now a mushroom farm. I was told by the lady at the Breakwater museum that if you are polite enough they will let you in to have a look around.. Adam (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Elswick Ordnance Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Paste ^Talk 19:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if you have noticed yet but I just created the article for Beehive Casemate. Thought you might be interested. Also the beehive casemate runs under this position in Obelisk Bay Mosman. Maybe you could find some black and whites for the article. I couldn't find much more info on this or what kind of guns were used but if you have a look at the interior pic you will notice the remnants of one of the old gun stands rotting away. Adam (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just got back from the above mentioned battery. I managed to find my way in as well. I will be uploading some photos soon. I even managed to get into the underground bunker there as well. I will show you the photos as I upload them Inside the gun emplacement. Cheers . Adam (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you removed[2] an image I restored and added to the QF 4.7 inch Gun Mk I - IV article. I don't quite see why. If it's the caption you take issue with: I took it from the original image. If it's the presence of a Pickelhaube: I don't see one. The soldier in the background has a regular Stahlhelm. Did I mistakingly identify the gun? I couldn't find a better image of a WWI era QF. -- confused, Mvuijlst (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was a bit too hasty in removing the photo, sorry, I agree it's a good view of the breech end of a QF 4.7, and that the soldier is wearing a helmet, not a Pickelhaube. But it can't be at Ypres as the Germans didn't capture Ypres. Perhaps it should go back as "Germans displaying captured 4.7 inch gun"... the writing on the buildings looks Dutch, so it could be somewhere in the German-occupied zone of Belgium. Regards. rod Rcbutcher (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you were a bit too hasty in uploading the image to the Commons. I uploaded the restored original (File:Captured QF 4.7 inch gun WWI LOC ggbain 19654 HR.jpg), changed the link in the article and modified the descriptions at the commons to include restoration ifo and links to alternate versions. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...is going to make an appearance on the Main Page in the Did you know? section in about 6 hours. See Template:Did you know/Queue/2. :) Good job! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 14"/50 caliber railway gun, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great diagrams those for the Minas Gerais ! Can you access the same source and get similar ones for the argentinian ARA Rivadavia? So both classes could be better compared. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go File:Rivadavia class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg Rcbutcher (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:4 inch mortar bomb WWI IWM MUN 003227.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:4 inch mortar bomb WWI IWM MUN 003227.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, I thought that a contemporary picture of the gun turret was more suitable for the infobox picture. I'm going to be massively revising the article and can add your picture somwhere in the body of the article if you'd like. Just give me a week or so as I'm working on a couple of other articles at the moment. Jason Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm toying with writing up an article on the German coast defenses of Belgium, but my scans from Miller's report are kinda marginal in legibility. Your scans seem to be higher quality than mine, judging from some of the pictures that you uploaded. I'd be appreciative if you could give the diagrams on pp. 758 and 759 a try. Please let me know if you upload them. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, unfortunately all the books scanned by Google seem to be of a very poor scan quality. The .pdf versions seem to be slightly better than the .djv versions, but are also poor. I had to do quite a bit of cleaning up to the diagrams before I uploaded to Wiki. Ive made a start to the 2 maps here :

• http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-758-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (smaller version)
• http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-758-2-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (larger version)
• http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-759-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (smaller version)
• http://members.optusnet.com.au/rcbutcher/images/Miller-map-page-759-2-clipped-quality-100.jpeg (larger version)

I suggest you erase the text place names etc. and retype the text. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is dated April 1944. The Mk VII guns were moved to Cheviot Hill in 1942, so this would be the location of the photo, not at Fort Pearce itself. I did have in mind to (eventually) create a Cheviot Hill article too. ShipFan (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the IWM image of a Short Folder being hoisted aboard (or lowered from?) HMS Hermes. I'm puzzled that the image is supposed to have been of S.64, taken in 1913, since Barnes & James (Putnam 1989) contains on p. 92 the following statement:"The second 160 hp seaplane (S.64, serial 82) was completed in March 1914 ...".If the photo was indeed taken in 1913, which seems likely, since trials of the first Folder were indeed carried out by HMS Hermes in July of that year, then the aircraft shown must be S.63 (serial 81), which, as Barnes and James report, "flew successfully on 26, 27 and 31 July, reporting back the position of ships by means of a Rouzet transmitter". So it would appear that the IWM has incorrectly identified the aircraft. --TraceyR (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they may have got it wrong.. they also describe it as being hoisted OUT.. but the Wiki article states it flew off the ship.. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and suggestion that I let the IWM know about the incorrect identification; I have sent a comment via their website, so we'll have to wait for their response. On another issue: How did you apply for permission to use the image? Did you write by email, apply online etc? I wasn't aware that their images were available for use here, but if they are it will be a great resource for Wikipedia, especially if they give blanket permission for use here.

At the time aircraft were always lowered onto the water for take-off and (if they made it back) hoisted aboard. Judging from the condition of the sircraft in the photo (clean, dry and shiny) I would think that it was being hoisted out before take-off. --TraceyR (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs taken by or for the British Government come under "Crown Copyright" which lasts for 50 years after the year the photograph was taken in. Hence any photographs taken by or for the British government before 1959 are now out of copyright - i.e. public domain - and we don't need permission to use the images. This would include photographs taken on active service by service personnel... but e.g. private studio photographs of people, as opposed to official photographs, would have copyright until 70 years after the death of the photographer. AS a matter of courtesy, I only use the small free "thumbnail" images from the IWM website on Wikipedia.. people can pay for the fullsize image and the money goes to a good cause. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Hough's book at the moment. He's got a fairly simple diagram of the collision which shouldn't be too difficult to reproduce. I'm only halfway so he may yet come back to what happened with his own views on exactly what Tryon intended and more details, so I'm not at a stage where I feel I have definitively read all there is yet. His diagram might not be wholly accurate: I'm not certain whether it was established exactly how far round the ships were when they hit. It does sound like another titanic and the iceberg incident, where Victoria tried to slow too late. If she had sped up and Camperdown had slowed, maybe they might have missed. Hough also seems to be setting up an argument that Tryon knew perfectly well it was a collision course, but he set it up as an exercise in TA (captains to act on their discretion), which Hough says he had ordered days before, but had not rescinded. It was standing instructions that TA continued until cancelled. This seems to be confirmed by the description of how Tryon was acting (walking away from the bridge as he normally did during TA to imply it was up to them to sort it out) Sandpiper (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you may have noted, I am linking only those artillery pieces to the list which are listed there (plus those lists which include this artillery). Please elaborate why do you feel that this is "unencyclopedic". Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is that connecting things just by size is meaningless. A 16 inch howitzer has nothing in common with a 16 inch naval gun, has nothing in common with a 16 inch coast defence gun. etc. Different mission, ballistics, ammo, use.. that's why it's unencyclopedic to lump them together. You wouldn't link goats to dogs because they're of a similar size. To be encyclopedic the grouping needs a logical grounding e.g. naval guns of 12-16 inches were used for similar roles on battleships in a timeframe 1900-1945 - their mission, trajectory, ammo etc was fairly similar. A 12 inch muzzle-loader of 1700 had nothing in common but its size - its role, trajectory, ammo etc was totally different. You need to group and compare like with like for it to be encyclopedic. regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input the problem is trying to avoid the British Artillery during World War I article and what to add or leave out --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the above. I must have passed those guns a thousand times and until now all I ever knew about them was that they were used in the Boer war. --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)

In particular was there a caption for the image in the book? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the date to 1919 - the photo shows him wearing the VC. The Commons transfer program always wrecks the date. Apart from that, all the info looks correct. There was no other info about the photo in the book. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Cecil, a British once-off BL 4.1inch gun. It has quite a good story behind it. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edit to Category:Gangut class battleships and the edit summary. While the Gangut ships did not serve in the Royal Navy (and, hence, are not classed in Category:Royal Navy battleships), the ships' design was developed—according to Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906–1921—from designs from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy. Because Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom is for battleships designed, built, or operated by the United Kingdom, I have re-added the category for now. But if you have better sourcing that indicates that none of the UK design elements were used, please accept my apologies in advance. Cheers. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is listed... next time, please ask before deleting that much data, so as to eliminate these mishaps... Magus732 (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about this : dunno what I was thinking (or not thinking) about... Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RCB. I think this edit is incorrect, for the reasons discussed at the article's talk page. You justifiably relied on the image description, but whoever first posted it probably made some unwarranted assumptions. I asked for assistance on the ships project talk page and I suspect it will soon be sorted out. Perhaps you have sources as well. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I think they were also general/agricultural tractors and not particularly good as military ones. But I am not sure. It is just a start for the article and hopefully someone who really knows more will add things. I don't know really how to flag it up to get more help. I didn't know anything about them as such even though had seen lots of pictures with them pulling guns and was surprised to find their name and no proper article. I will look for some more but I am pretty sure we will have an expert who knows! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for linking the photo to the piece. There was little description in the museum in Bogota and not being knowledgeable about artillery (I am former Infantry, and that a long time ago), I knew nothing much about it. Nice to know now. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are going round tidying up after me. I had more text for 'Agincourt', but then in the middle of last night someone decided to revise wiki software and it all went away and died. My computer will still not edit pages with explorer, this is now with firefox. Anyway, nice to see someone is paying attention. Sandpiper (talk)

That sentence was there before I added anything. My additions come from fitzgerald's autobiography. If I manage to move forward through some more pages of the book (rather than keep re-doing bits, teeth nashing sound), he may have something else to say about the ship. There are a few interesting general comments scattered about which give an idea of what things were like onboard which I might try to get in somewhere. As sometimes seems to be the case with biographies he does jump about a bit. The article needed some sections. Sandpiper (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are making useful improvements to this article. You may be in mid-edit, but could I just suggest adding inline citations where there is new information added (eg "known as Boxer shrapnel"). Otherwise it may get deleted or given a Fact tag. The paragraphs are already cited and we need to make sure that we don't add information that is not supported by the cited source - unless you're referring to that source, of course. Keep up the good work. Cyclopaedic (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking me up on that - I've reviewed my references, and it looks like I incorrectly interpreted what they were saying : "Boxer shrapnel" appears not to have been an offificial designation but more a means of conveniently differentiating it from later steel-walled Shrapnel shells. The 1877 Treatise on Ammunition does not refer to Boxer shrapnel, just Shrapnel. I've referenced the exact text used in the 1887 edition to avoid misunderstandings. Keep up the good work - we need more quality control ! Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your additions to these articles. I was going to ask you to "fill in the blanks" on the armament, but you are already doing so. The articles are not finished yet, but your efforts are helping move them to that stage. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please don't think I'm following you or checking up on what you're doing, nothing as organised as that... I tend to bounce around a whole load of articles like a flea... basically anything to do with British ordnance 1859 - 1918 is likely to attract me. Regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the last image on this page be an interesting addition? I have asked Stifle if he thinks it is PD. Kablammo (talk) 17:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your extraordinary dedication in categorising Australian military images, I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, however, you may be interested in the discussion on supposedly PD images going on at Ellis Wackett's FAC, which has already led to two useful pictures being nominated for deletion on US copyright grounds that had never to my knowledge been raised regarding PD-Australia works... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks to me as though you need to take this up with shem1805 who with the edit note 're-write' seems to have added the bit about breech loaders, plus a somewhat excessive quantity of sections. I recall writing a stub about another of these little gunboats where it said she was refitted with breech loaders? might be the case here. (the comment about excessive sections is true but perhaps rather picky because I suppose he is adding structure to the article which hopefully will get filled in. I'm sure I remember reading guidelines about this not to add sections until there is enough content to fill them.) regards.Sandpiper (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away just now or i might be able to find more info. Clowes/the royal navy a history vol 7 makes a brief mention that the armstrong 'block' breech loaders were recommended by an admiralty committee 1858. He then has a table of guns in service from 1860. He then comments that the 7in guns and most of the 40 pdrs were quickly got rid of, but some of the lighter guns remained in service for 20 years. So that sounds to me most unlikely they were in use in surprise when she was first commissioned. Possibly when she was broken up in 1866. the 7in used 11lbs of powder with a 109 pound projectile generating 915 foot tons muzzle velocity 1100 foot seconds. Rifling was polygroove with one turn in 37 calibers. There is also a diagram of a gun on naval carriage from armstrong's which might be worth having. It is a different carriage to that in the picture of a gun on warrior in the gun's article. [3] Sandpiper (talk)

Hi, I noticed your comment on Ireland and World War I. I'm currently in the middle of trying to improve it. What faults do you find with the military sections, currently? Do you have any ideeas about how to go about fixing them? Jdorney (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yourself and User:Osioni do seem to have turned this into a much more encyclopedic article ! It gets the facts right and covers the controversial and sensitive issues of the division over participation and memory. Perhaps it needs addition of details of naval activities around the Irish coast, as this was a key region in the U-boat war ? Perhaps mention the 36th capture of the Schwaben Redoubt during the Somme battle ? This was a major achievement. It was again lost due to inability to get reinforcements forward, but that was not their fault. There remain a few minor grammatical errors which I'll fixup. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I agree about the navel and military aspects. My problem is that I have no good sources for these. Can you help out here? Also, on the military side, I wonder if the current chronological format is the best way to go? Would it be better to chronicle the fortunes of each of the three Irish Division maybe? Let me know. I'll send a note to Osioni, while I'm at it. Jdorney (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to both of you, and thank you Jd for contacting me. I agree Ireland & WWI needs co-ordination. But firstly Jd, is trying to improve the article an exercise in obliterating many of my well referenced edits ? I make a point of integrating others edits into my edits, so long as their agenda is not to misrepresent nationalist history. Never do I plough through articles deleting what does not suit my views, inserting a singular standpoint. This article is one of the few All-Ireland articles, not just ROI history, where Northern involvement, sentiments and tradition also require consideration. Townshend’s “Easter 1916” may be an authority on that event, not necessary on WWI. We require thirty-two county All-Ireland 1914-18 Great War military history sources (perhaps some related details before and after included). Incidentally, various statistics don’t tally, lowest figures quoted rather than reliable figures (example enlistment 1918: 11000, Taoiseach's Office: 15,655). The reworded introduction obviously diverts away from a focus on Ireland & WWI to other parallel events where these are adequately highlighted elsewhere and not related to the title of the article. Osioni (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should contiue this on the relevant talk page. However I only deleted things which were (sorry) factually wrong, like the level of recruitment from the Nat Vols etc. Plus there weren't any ref's at all there that I recall. Re the stats, they were the ones I had available, if there are a range of estimates then lets list them. Re the intro, I think 'parallell events' are central to Ireland's expreience of the war and the way it was remembered. Townshend's work is extensively referenced and not a nationalist work either, so there is no reason not to cite it. And re a 'singular viewpoint', I think the point of a WP article is not to be making interpretive points in the first place. Jdorney (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been added higher up the article --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit - you can achieve the same, or at least a similar, effect by using {{clearleft}} (see also {{clear}} and {{clearright}}); this ought to be less prone to removal than <br />. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. --Trovatore (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Maybe you can help this occasional editor with an article I started in my user space, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hudavendigar/Submarine_Abdul_Hamid. I would like someone more expert to go over and comment. Also, and this is embaressing, how do I release it eventually - it is not ready yet. Also, of there are more appropriate tags, maybe you can add them. There is also a probelem with the name. Though most Western sources use "Abdul Hamid" (it is a name for many many things), Turkish is "Abdulhamid". How do we deal with it? Thanks.--Murat (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I am no expert either was but it was way too interesting to pass up. I just remembered that we had another exchange a log while back on something related to Gallipoli. Thanks again.--Murat (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a misprint somewhere, & I didn't think to check it... It should be 88. And if you can, fix 'em all (there may be others); I'll have a look, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, have a look at this. Fitzsimons credits them with 3 tubes & 6pdr (57mm), & I haven't got anything like good enough sources to confirm. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! I think it was you who opposed in summer the creation of this article of mine on the grounds that it compares apples with oranges. I believe you are right. Grouping together all these different kinds of cannon is close to WP:Synthesis.

I propose to split the list into three smaller ones (on the same page). The criteria would be the kind of of projectiles used:

1. stone balls (14-16th century)
2. iron balls (15th to 19th century)
3. explosive shells (beginning with Henri-Joseph Paixhans to this day)

What do you think? Do these subdivisions make sense? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still here? ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with my proposal. See also talk page there. Happy new year! :-D Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, you can swear at people online - congradulations, well done! May i direct your attention to mulptiple sources that confirm that, at least during its Second World War exsistance, that it was indeed the 42nd (East Lancs) Infantry Division; the only time the word "Infantry" was missing was during its First World War existance. So to conclude - dont be a tool :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intresting appraoch to good faith edits--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make whatever changes you see fit - I'll do the same and, with luck, the article will improve. Another problem with the new pic is that it gives no sense of scale. I took it from Commons, follow the link at the bottom of the article and see if there's a pic your prefer. However the new one is a nice profile. Perhaps the ship's list needs expansion, partic for those without a separate article. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in my recent articles on the main batteries of second world war cruisers. Your template seems much more comprehensive than my knowledge of the subject, but I wonder if some of the categories might be overly inclusive. Defensively Equipped Merchant Ships, for example, seem to have carried a very broad variety of weapons until standardized wartime production became available. I feel unqualified to offer much in the way of improvement, and I encourage you to add the template to articles as you see fit.Thewellman (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can tell none. They were able to locate a grand total of one of the 7-inch Armstrong in the channel islands (quite a trick since it was generaly assumed that there were none left and the gun in question was probably on Warrior at some point) which they then coppied in glass fiber but I think that one was then returned. Situation whas much the same with the 68 pounders. Not so sure about the 40 pounders.©Geni 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the at least 1 40 pounder and what I think is the 20 pounder are made of metal and are therefor probably original. The 6-pounder brass cannon looks to be real as well. Btw there is a real 110-pounder on display at Fort Nelson, Hampshire but the loading mechanism is covered by canvas and it's positioning makes it near impossible to get a good photo.©Geni 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose any move of the page Fuze by following the WP:RM process. It is clearly disputed by other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RcB:

I received this e-mail in response to my enquiry:

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your enquiry and apologies for the delay. This gun carries the serial number 295 and if the surviving Gun Logs belonging to Explosion! The Museum of Naval Firepower at Priddy's Hard, Gosport but currently on deposit at the Hampshire County Record Office, Winchester, are consulted it can be seen that it was removed from Calypso and returned to store in Plymouth on the 10th August 1901and appears to have ended up in Devonport on 23rd January 1902. Sadly there are no other entries regarding its earlier (or later) life. If, as you say, she had four such guns on board later, these would obviously carry other numbers and probably recorded in those Gun Logs. At the time this information did not form part of my brief.
I am not entirely certain of the exact way this gun came to be on loan to us since it was before my time. Knowing John Pounds and his organisation as I do he would have phoned us up to let us know that he had acquired it and would we like it as a loan item.
I hope this helps.
Yours faithfully,

[name]
Curator of Artillery
Royal Armouries

I do not understand the shape of the gunhouse, but perhaps the armament changed. I have a 1963 article from Mariners Mirror which has a silhouette of other ships of the Comus class which at least suggest this shape of gunhouse.

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are still interested we now have a photo of the rear of the gun File:6 inch gun from HMS Calypso rear.JPG.15:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That photo appears to confirm the gun as QF 6-inch Mk III. The photograph shows a gun with trunnions on Vavasseur mount which fits Mk III, also the breech lacks the lug underneath which Mk I and II had for connection to recoil buffer. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. On this image I think the machine gun mounted on the gunwale might be a Nordenfelt, as that is the type specified for the ship in the source I have. Also, can you look at the image review section of the FAC? I asked a question about this image and the reviewer suggests that the original source (the publication from which it was scanned) be set forth on the image page. Thanks for any help you can give. Kablammo (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found where the photo came from. Per this source (which links the photo with the name of "teaching the young idea", it came from The Navy and Army Illustrated sometime between 1896–99. I will add that to Commons. Kablammo (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod-- here's another good picture of a Nordenfelt, from the same source. Kablammo (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were your recent removals based on a concensus result that I missed somewhere? For most of the world, "inch" and "pound" have very little meaning, hence the guideline at MOS:CONVERSIONS. LeadSongDog come howl 07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me regarding conversion of naval artillery dimensions. I agree metric to English (or American Standard) dimensions is a problem; although I'm uncertain my knowledge of the Wikipedia style manual is adequate to propose a solution. My primary concern is with regard to significant figures. Manufacturing standards for any given weapon probably involved three or four decimal places; but manufacturing standards are seldom discussed in articles. When it comes to comparison of similar weapons (or describing the same weapon in different units), I doubt there is any practical benefit to providing more than two decimal places. I question, for example, providing separate categories for 200 mm artillery and 203 mm artillery. It is difficult to differentiate a 6-inch projectile from a 15-cm projectile without sophisticated measuring devices and relatively detailed information about the gun firing it. Range comparisons in yards and meters often imply an unrealistic precision ignoring salvo spreads and shot to shot variability of hundreds of yards over the useful life of the gun. I anticipate there may be instances where additional precision may be valuable, but I believe they will be the exception where a variation from two-significant-figure standards would be obvious in the explanation of the information. Measured differences can often be better described in two significant figures rather than by presenting both measured quantities with more significant figures. (For example, the difference between 8-inch guns and 20-cm guns is 3.2mm or 1.6% rather than 203.2mm vs 200.0mm.)Thewellman (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit of the BL 6 inch Mk XXIII naval gun article leads me to conclude you have reservations about my approach to the matter. I respect your decision to apply Campbell's 4-significant-figure conversion; but I wonder if I might take the liberty of exploring some of the technical issues. Given the thermal expansion coefficient of steel, Campbell's 4-digit figure would be accurate over a temperature range of 6 Celsius degrees. I'm uncertain what the manufacturing specification may have been, but assuming 6.000 inches at twenty degrees means Campbell's conversion would be high for measurements made at temperatures below 17 degrees and low for measurements made at temperatures over 23 degrees. United States Navy practice specified bourrelet diameter at 0.015 inch less than nominal bore diameter with a minus manufacturing tolerance such that the average maximum diameter of a 6-inch projectile (neglecting the malleable copper rotating band) was expected to be 5.988 inches. Rotating band diameter was a few thousandths of an inch greater than the groove-to-groove diameter of rifling depth typically up to one percent of caliber, and might have been as great as 6.12 inches. Bore diameters were measured land-to-land with positive manufacturing tolerances. Erosion was expected to increase that diameter over the life of the gun; but no effect on dispersion was anticipated until bore diameter exceeded 6.038 inches. Concern was greater about possible reduction of bore diameter. Copper deposits from rotating bands were common, but of less concern than the possibility of bore constriction caused by hoop slippage past a shoulder during relative movement of the elements of a built-up gun. I would value any information you might have about the handling of similar issues in Royal Navy practice.Thewellman (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi. This is not something which has come to my attention before so I started without an opinion. The point you seem to be making quite correctly is that a number of guns (though there must be other kinds of things also) have nominal descriptions such as 4in but may in reality not be exactly this size. So attempting to translate from eg inches to cm can give a false impression of actual size.

I looked at the existing style guide advice which says: When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs. Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). However, small numbers may need to be converted to a greater level of precision where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so one mile (1.6 km), not one mile (2 km).

so, I would say it already says units should only be translated once in an article where eg 4in is more a name than an actual measurement. I think translating once makes sense for readers who might be unfamiliar with one or other set of units.

Then the second bit implies that if a gun were only nominally 4 in, then it should be translated to an appropriately nominal precision. so no 99.8mm or whatever but perhaps 10cm. I think these rules already say that where a number is a designation rather than a precise measurement, then the equivalent accepted designation in alternative units ought to be used. The trouble is that without specialist knowledge well meaning translators are not going to necessarily know the proper conversion. It also occurs that you can't necessarily compare guns meaningfully on bore alone: barrel length and charge affect its actual performance as a gun.

There may be a problem in adding to style instructions, in that no one will know about them unless they read them. I never had before I looked it up just now. So people will continue to helpfully add conversions as they habitually do in other circumstances, even if you establish a formal exception in one or another guide. It might though save argument if you can point them to where it talks about it if it comes to reverting them.

I have left a comment on the talk page of the style guide, tacked on to a section where they were already discussing the section I quote above. I think, yes, it might usefully be changed to more explicitly explain that a measurement used as a name should not be automatically converted literally. Sandpiper (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again dunno. My reaction would be to quote them as the manufacturers arms salesman would have done when talking to his client. if there is a normally quoted calibre, .303, then we use that. The degree of precision in measurement would depend on what is accepted usage. Obviously, an article might somewhere go into the actual manufactured bore being .3027 and state this precisely in as many fractions of mm as necessary (just guessing a size). So i think in your example 6in (one sf) should be translated as 305mm (3sf) if that is the figure the salesman used abroad.Sandpiper (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my edit on the article. Note: I took the liberty to revert the revert. According to the source stated in the article it was Gerhard Brenner who struck Jackal. At least the Germans gave him the credit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do you the decency not not giving you a template warning, but you are at the limit of 3RR on Scharnhorst class armored cruiser and if I see you make another revert, you will be blocked. Once the first revert and undo was made you should have entered into discussion on the talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-MBK₀₀₄ 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Paterson (explorer) belongs in the Paterson dab page, not the Patterson dab page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a note to remind you that, per WP:SIS, links to Commons categories go in the "External links" section, should it exist, or the final section of the page, otherwise. I've fixed this on List of lieutenant governors of New Brunswick and List of lieutenant governors of Prince Edward Island. Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding a picture to the Charles Gilpin (politician)‎ article. Makes all the difference! Vernon White ^{. . . Talk}

Thank you very much for fixing up the problems on Battle of Romani and Battle of Magdhaba pages. I really appreciate your help.--RoslynSKP (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twice describing reliably sourced material as "bullshit" and replacing it with your original research gives an impression of near vandalism. Please justify your version on the talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting—sorry: I will reply to the points you have made on the article talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to the article which is the correct Vickers 8-inch howitzer please. Wolcott (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry if I messed up. Could you guide me on how to write it? Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would File:HMSMajesticSternShowing3Pounders.jpg be applicable , as they were also in the crow nest. Buggie111 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After about a year I have got round to adding an animated diagram of the sinking to the HMS Victoria 1887 article. Based on the diagrams submitted to the court-martial. Dont know if I like it or not, but it gets the successive positions of the ships in one box. I have an alternate version where each frame is just labelled a,b,c, etc with detailed captions below and also I can change the time each frame is shown. Feedback appreciated. Sandpiper (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for getting back. Its all a bit experimental, so ive already uploaded 4 versions in the image history to see how they looked for real before getting this far. Like your changes to the captions. I agree the numbers on the diagram come out very small: I didnt want them to dominate the picture, but of course theyre scaled down in the page thumbnail from the originals where they are more readable. Thought so myself yesterday squinting at them. It might be possible to have a different colour for each ship so get rid of the numbers, but as it stands just having victoria and camperdown different draws the eye to the centre of the action?

I have a wild idea it would be nice to see Jutland like this but it would be horribly complicated. The basic information exists on dozens of differently scaled charts, eg in Marder or Corbett. Sandpiper (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked the photos of 19th-century British naval guns. I have a few more to scan in, which I hope to do sometime in May; if not, then in June.

You asked why I uploaded them to Wikipedia instead if Wikimedia. The reason is that Wikimedia uploads require a much broader and deeper understanding of all sorts of copyright issues and the associated tags -- there are all sorts of intimidating and detailed admonitions about this on Wiki -- and also tends to require greater justification for an assertion that an image is in the public domain. I have not had the time to learn all of this yet, and until I do I don't plan to delve into Wikimedia.

Someday, probably, I'll learn enough to do it without fear or trepidation, but Wikimedia is not my main are of interest in participating in Wikipedia, and so for now I am leaving Wikimedia to those who both understand it better and are committed to it. That's the beauty of collaborative efforts like Wiki; I can chip in to the overall effort by writing or contributing to articles I am interested (such as these photos) and someone else can chip in by uploading qualifying images to Wikimedia if they are so inclined and well enough informed to do so.

Meanwhile, thanks for your support. It's nice to know my efforts are appreciated, and it motivates me to keep up the effort! Mdnavman (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing 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 Wikipedia: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. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron, Can you help me with this problem page? I think it should have been a sub page but I don't know how to create one - this would go some way to fixing the style problem.

And I am guessing the copyright problem is to do with the reference to the Official History of the Australian Medical Service written by Downes which is available on the web site of the Australian War Memorial, as all the other references should be ok under 'fair use'.

I have established a temporary page to fix the problems. Can you please advise me how I should go about this? --RoslynSKP (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ron, Thank you very much for your advice. Will do. Kind Regards, --RoslynSKP (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoslynSKP (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, The Sinai and Palestine campaign page has been re-edited to cut out all my direct quotes and have begun the re-write of Affair of Katia. Hope its all going in the right direction now.--RoslynSKP (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, While cleaning up my contribution to the 42nd Infantry Division page it occurred to me that a copy of Powles' Battle of Romani map would be good to have beside this section. Is it possible to do this? If so, how? :) --RoslynSKP (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gidday from NZ (though I'm still an Australian at heart), good catch on the lack of propellers. I'm working on this article with the aim of first getting it up to A status, and hopefully GA (even FA). Any help in this would be much appreciated. Once my university studies get busy towards the end of semester and exams I won't be spending much time editing. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Bernard Partridge, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ron,

I wish to commend you on your hard work on this page. It was done like and expert. Thanks.

Also, are you aware that the Ordnance QF 12 pounder 8 cwt is the cannon that is used by the British RN and Canadian Navy's "Field Gun Run"? I posted a link showing training for it by the RN.

Again, thanks for the excellent work.

Jack E. Hammond

.

I am new to editing Wikipedia pages and would appreciate a review of the M734 Fuze article. I have added pictures as well as the R&D history and S&A Mechanism sections. I want to be certain the results are acceptable before concluding with a description of the Turbine Alternator power supply. Regards Luceyg (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent template. I started a similar one, User:HLGallon/WIP, some time ago, but never followed it up. I will add some items and links to your template, if I may, in due course. HLGallon (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another look at the M734 Fuze article? I saw the request for additions and have made contributions of: pictures, a description of the Safety and Arming Mechanism, a history of the R&D program, supporting Footnotes, and corrections to the External Links. The inputs were based upon my experience as the Army manager who transitioned the fuze out of R&D and into Full Scale Production. An effort was made to speak in plain English, as you requested years ago. I am now preparing a section on the most unique feature of the fuze, namely the Turbine Alternator power supply. But, since I am a novice editor to Wikipedia articles, I would like an editor's review to be certain I am on the right track, and to ask whether the rating can be improved over that of a STUB. Luceyg (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand your reply, to improve the M734 Fuze article for the broadest range of Encyclopedia readers, it could: 1) Be written with wording similar to a training manual for an educated sergeant rather than as a set of technical notes for a design engineer; and 2) Include links for readers if additional explanation is needed for a technical term, such as "alternator."

I will try to do this in three steps, the first being to complete the technical input, the second being to ask for your review and comment, and the third being to go back and simplify. At the moment, I am presently wwriting a separate description for the turbine alternator since the 1 inch size and required functions are so different from the Wiki links to "megawatt alternators" and "300ft tall wind turbines."

I will be back to ask for your help with a stage 2 review in a couple weeks.

Regards, George Luceyg (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The M734 Fuze rewrite at the level of a Master Sergeant is complete and ready for your review and comment. One questions is how to link figure numbers in the body of text to the figure titles....for example,suppose someone enters a new picture, how can the numbering system change as it does with the footnotes. Regards, George

Luceyg (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my specialist subject but here goes;

1. The lede needs expanding should be three paragraphs but two would cover an article this size
2. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force has an inf box template you can use for the right hand side of the article which I would put the upper image in. The lower image can then be moved further down as they give the impression of being 'squeezed' together at the moment.
3. Britain entered World War I - personal choice but most reviewers would expect the British First World War to be used in British articles.
4. A lot more citations are required I can add tags if you want - I have some times been known to ask for more citations than others.
5. Are there articles for - British No. 100 and later No. 101, 102 and 103 nose "graze" fuzes. If not make them red links and it encourages others or yourself to create the article.
6. Same with World War II Second World War
7. The bullet points could be changed to prose

Just a quick run through but it give you something to work with. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is still time to put it in for DYK but it needs to be referenced --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ...that the No. 106 Fuze was the first British artillery instantaneous percussion fuze?

Self nom by

That would do if you can reference it. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod, my sources specify BL rather than QF for the guns on the Minotaur, but QFs are BL by definition so it probably doesn't matter. Now I am trying to ID some 5-inch BL guns from the 1860s. I'm leaning towards the idea that they were the 70-pdr Armstrong BL guns that supposedly were never issued, according to Lambert, but would like a bit more confirmation. Only a few ships received them, which sorta supports the idea that they were the 70-pdrs. Any thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The M734 Fuze article was rated as Stub-Class when I started revisions and I would appreciate your review for a G rating or higher.

My contributions as the Army manager that fielded the first production of the fuze are now complete.

Your recommendations regarding links to technical words and style of language for broader Wiki appeal have been included.

The text has been lengthened, pictures have been added, all components of the fuze have been addressed, references added, external

links corrected, history added, next generation fuze identified.

Luceyg (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can use the Move-to-commons assistant to get an original upload log when moving images to the Commons - this makes the whole process much easier. As an example I added a log to your move of In Flanders Fields museum flag.jpg. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you uploaded a couple of maps of the shipping exclusion zones declared by britain/germany in WWI. I want one map showing both the british and German zones for the 'RMS Lusitania' article as they were declared at that time and was thinking of creating one. There are maps of both in Bailey and Ryan's book on Lusitania, but the german one is different to the one you uploaded. Not encouraging. I wondered if you happened to know whether the map you posted is accurate, or anywhere I might be able to see accurate ones?Sandpiper (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't add any more information - they are the only maps I have seen. It would be great if you could construct an accurate map ! Regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. easier said than done. I have a blank UK and european coast outline map based on a contemporary admiralty chart and I even nearly have an overlay of the course of U20 when it sank Lusitania. I dont know if its correct, like yourself, its just what was in the book. I have three different books and between them four different course plots. Now between us we have two different exclusion zones. If I can find a precise description of the exclusion zones I will add them, but first need to find them. Anyhow, Im learning how the paint program works. Sandpiper (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The photos/images of World War I flying aces that you uploaded are most welcome. My interest in World War I aviators has led me to create a few hundred bio articles on aces, all of them lacking illustration. Additionally, most of the other WWI ace bios written by others also lack illustration. If you are enthused about illuminating some articles, you have literally a thousand opportunities here. If you limit yourself to Irish, Aussie, and British aces, you still have hundreds. In either case, your talents are extremely welcome in this niche. The key to the niche may be found at List of World War I flying aces.

At any rate, thanks for new imagery. It adds a new sparkle to the articles so adorned.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only uploaded one image myself, all the rest I've just cataloged and sorted by surname so people can find them. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Interesting...how you shortchange your accomplishments, Rod. I messaged you here because my watchlist showed that you loaded photos or imagery of some sort for seven aces. I cannot recall the last time someone loaded photos into more than one ace's bio. And if you are building a catalog for us fellow editors, that's even more commendable.

But, reading between the lines above, it seems you lack interest in the challenge.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reinserting the image of this ship. I cannot understand why it was removed. Was this a case of vandalism? Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, I've replied to you on my talk page, many thanks for getting in touch. Simon. Yorkist (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied again, Simon. Yorkist (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the discussion to the article's talk page, to keep it together in one place?Yorkist (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mispelling of Ehrhardt; it was wrong in a book I read and also on List of artillery by name. I've corrected it there, but I also notice on that list that all the weapons we've been discussing/editing recently are listed as howitzers rather than field guns. Seems wrong, any thoughts before I change them? Simon. Yorkist (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jean de Paléologue, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Max Beerbohm, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cuthbert Bradley, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested why you've removed the Boer War info in [edit]. The statement doesn't seem unlikely, and it's referenced. I don't have the book it's referenced from, but why do you think it's 'dodgy'? Thanks, Yorkist (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! best wishes, Yorkist (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was there to inspect the defenses of portsmouth. It's worth a mention because at the the time the the king visiting somewhere was serious business. While I doubt Edward had the impact of Elizabeth people would spend a fortune preparing for such visits. The castle would at the time only have been lightly manned so in all likelyhood it would have been the most people in the castle at once for many a year.©Geni 08:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rcbutcher. Please stop moving the Commons links in articles from the first non-prose subsection to an empty external links section like you did here. This is incorrect, per this guideline, specifically the line "If no such section exists and you are using a large, graphical template, then the links should be placed in the last section of the page..." The Commons link only goes in an external links section if there already is one. We've gone round in circles on this a number of times, and I figured I should mention it to you. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Parsecboy, I suggest you discuss this with MIESIANIACAL : refer to his instructions to me of 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC). He states I should put the Commons link in the External links section if it exists, or the last section if not. I complied with this, but also added an External links section where it didn't exist, to provide an anchor and on the assumption that it would eventually be needed anyway. I really don't care what the standard is so long as we have one so readers can have a consistent structure to navigate and stuff like links appear in consistent locations. I would suggest that users expect Commons links at the end of the article as that's where it appears in the vast majority of articles. If we put them in say References section, and references grow and multiple sections than appear after this, we end up with Commons link far above the end of the arcticle, as is now the case with the Bayern class article regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the short answer is no. I think a slightly longer answer is that I agree with you, a wiki page is essentially a traditional printed page which just happens to scroll up and down behind a viewing window. So perhaps more like one of those microfiche machines. I can imagine that it might be possible to design a page fundamentally differently so that certain elements stayed fixed while others scrolled past dynamically, as your example, perhaps a map might stay fixed in a corner of the screen but update as the text flows past. Putting aside the question of whether this is better than simply having separate maps (1am, 2 am, troop withdraws, whatever), I dont see how the computer can with the current state of the art tell where the reader has got to. It could perhaps notice what part of the text is on the screen and have information about which image to display with that section, but I am not clear why this would be better than spacing individual maps through the article as the action progresses. Yes, There is a problem where things are moving along and we could have lots of detailed images showing an extended sequence which would not fit into an ordinary article - Corbett published a whole load of time slices for the ww1 naval battles - but as I said, I'm not certain how you might tell what bit the reader was reading. It might perhaps be done by linking to the centre of a page, or a line 1/3 down or whatever. But that is theoretical and I dont know if it would be practical to implement. I have never studied html.

I think such a page would have to be structured differently to a traditional printed page. If part of a page is static and text flows round it, it would probably become unreadable as the the text readjusted itself when you scrolled the window. So you would be trading off one sort of layout benefit against another disadvantage. Practically, you would probably have to have separate windows for text and diagram. Placing 2 rectangles of arbitrary size on a page will waste space. If you keep a fixed page with maps spaced through it which however still changed as you went down, we come back to the problem of telling where the reader has got to. I can also see a problem that people view these pages on widely different screen formats. SO they might have a lot of text on screen or little. Sorry, I am not an expert on what is possible. I just read the how-to on the animation program!

Having said all that, it might be possible to have a split image of two rectangles, one with an image and next to it a text description with a scrollbar. The image might then change as the user scrolled down through the relatively small amount of text displayed beside it. More of an extended caption than a whole article. But this as a whole could then be placed in a fixed location within an article. The scroll bar would be the control for the user to run back or forward through the battle and they could go at their own pace and review parts of interest. I think that would be better than a simple animation running at its own pace, though it might be nice to have the option just to let it run through by itself. No idea how it might be accomplished. AlthoughI think it better to have two independent but linked panes, so the text would have hidden markers when to change image, it might technically be easier if the whole thing is created from still images with a map one side and the corresponding text on the other. There might already be some sort of mechanism to control the rate of animations and allow frame advance/review.

It occurs that while we may have a new technology here, the old one has gone through 100's of years of refinement to figure how best to present information. Articles are fundamentally linear because we are fundamentally linear. Sandpiper (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed analysis. I realise with current webpage designs it's difficult to know where the user is focussing in the text.... but that to me is symptomatic of the current weakness - the webpage needs to interact more with the user rather than just slap a static page on the screen. Dunno how to at present... for a start we can assume that the user scrolls so that the centre of the screen is where they are reading. We then have a floating graphic e.g. map, which varies its content to match the text at centre of screen. The use will quickly understand what is happening as the graphic content changes with page scrolling. Example : Battle of Jutland, Midway etc. only make any sense in terms oif the fast movement of a large number of actors over a very large area : capital ships racing about at 25 knots, destroyers at 30+ knots, and squadrons of aircraft at Midway. We have good detailed texts on Wiki describing the key actions, but it's crippled by static content. A dynamic gif hovering and varying as the user scrolls down the text of e.g. the Run to the South, or Jellicoe finally crossing the T at Jutland would improve the user experience immensely. I know university libraries are looking into these kinds of ideas for distance education. I have used Javascript in the past to dynamically change images presented in a window, so at a very simple level if we create say 10 versions of a map showing positions during an action, we can use e.g. scrolling to trigger Javascript to reload the image.. or use a Java applet. Early days yet, but maybe we can set up a Wiki focus group to share ideas ? Rcbutcher (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rcbutcher. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Philipchetwode.jpg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sending this to FFD since it doesn't fall under any category. Will preserve your rational. . Thank you. Danger (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming that it is a seperate species. I saw the motor launch site a few weeks ago but my best Googling efforts have turned up very little else. Yesterday, in my local public library quite by chance, I saw a photo of the Scarborough gun and resolved to do something about it. Perhaps someone has a dusty old book with info in it or I might try an email to the Royal Armouries at Fort Nelson if nobody from WP knows. Alansplodge (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, of course, in pointing out light cruisers were defined by armament rather than displacement. In a larger sense, however, this gun points out early British recognition of the advantages of rapidity of fire over range. The United Kingdom built no more "heavy" cruisers after this gun had established its supremacy; so in fact, it was all cruisers, rather than simply all light cruisers which mounted this superb gun. I am reluctant to put such opinions into Wikipedia articles, but I believe this gun marks the apex of naval bag gun technology. Combat experience would show the theoretical advantage of range was largely an illusion because of the extremely low hit probability at maximum range. Light cruiser firepower overwhelmed heavier gunned ships of similar displacement once ships were within ranges where dispersion allowed reasonable hit probability. Light cruisers carried nearly twice as many guns firing roughly twice as fast as the heavy cruisers and would score approximately four times as many hits. The range advantage of heavier guns for shore bombardment caused the United States to retain heavy cruisers through the Vietnam War, but an updated Roberts class monitor would have been a more efficient investment for the purpose. So I leave it up to you whether to keep the "light" cruiser change to this article.Thewellman (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more useful explanation for the non-expert reader would be that the RN chose to cease building heavy cruisers, and instead concentrated on large light cruisers, epitomised by the Town class, armed with twelve 6-inch Mk XXIII guns. What I'm saying is, to me it is misleading to state that these guns replaced 8-inch guns... what actulally happened was that new classes of light cruisers replaced the heavy cruisers, for the reasons you give, and they were armed with this gun. I think the distinction is subtle but important - I understand that the RN ships were designed from the start with a particular calibre gun in mind. Do you have any references for the points you make, we could include them in a full discussion of this topic in the article. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Vortex Ring Gun had a C class rating due to referencing. The references were completely reformatted and expanded. Could you review the article for a higher rating, or give guidance on what is needed?

 Luceyg (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rcbutcher! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit at this article?--46.246.209.29 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the sources state 1858 as year of birth. Why did you change it to 1859 ? Rcbutcher (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it again but with edit summary. There you'll see the reason.--46.246.209.29 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inserting that very fine portrait of Sir Robert Fowler, 1st Baronet Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with all the photos you are adding to military biographies. They really improve the articles concerned. Dormskirk (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know you way around artillery. Any idea what these are?

They are located on the main road through Graaff-Reinet, Eastern Cape, South Africa. I could not find any marking, but there does seem to be places where identification plates might have been been fitted in the past.

Most guns on static display in South Africa are from the Boer Wars, but the recoil system on these look a bit advanced for the period. Maybe WWI?

--NJR_ZA (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are both British Ordnance BLC 15 pounders, and I believe they may be priceless as so few were built and hardly any left. I believe the South African Army had a few batteries of them in WWI. They need to be preserved while they are still intact - they are museum pieces. Please contact Frank Louw, Johannesburg Branch of the Gunner's Association, flouw@global.co.za mobile + 27 83 266 6896 ASAP - he has a team that restores artillery all over SA and I believe works with museums. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an editor a "mischievous idiot" is not helpful. It contravenes Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Even when feeling aggrieved, you should comment on actions not contributors. Personal attacks escalate disputes and damage the collegial editing atmosphere that Wikipedia aspires to. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the Vanity Fair images. You may be correct, Fastily may be. But resorting to personal attacks is not the way to reach a resolution here. It is also clearly against Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. Could I ask you to take aminute to review that policy and its associated rationale? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I am not the right person to look into your points. If you really believe Fastily has abused his position as an admin, I suggest you consider making a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Second, the account User:FSII is clearly marked as an alternative account, so its not accurate to describe it as a sockpuppet account and I don't see Fastily using it in any way that contravenes Wikipedia's policies. Finally, while you may be justified in your criticism of Fastily (again, I don't know either way) it is entirely possible to disagree with another editor without resorting to personal attacks. Attacks not only damage the Wikiepdia community, they diminish the strength of your argument. If you want people to address the facts, then I suggest you focus on stating the facts alone and avoid descending into schoolyard name calling. Good luck, Sparthorse (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI, I've notified Fastily of our conversation: User_talk:Fastily#Complaints_from_User:Rcbutcher. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe an admin action of mine was made in error, you are more than welcome to leave a polite message on my talk page explaining what the problem was. However, if you are going to insist on attacking me with "mischievous idiot" and continue to make groundless accusations, you need not expect me to interact with you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Managed to find some more info on these guns.

Seems there are 6 still in South Africa. One in perfect condition at the South African National Museum of Military History. It actually appears in a photo I took a couple of years ago. Two were converted for AA use and one each is now located in Kimberley and Cape Town. We know of the two in Graaff-Reinet. No idea where the last one is.

"Newsletter No 49". SOUTH AFRICAN MILITARY HISTORY SOCIETY. 2008. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--NJR_ZA (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well found ! Not as rare as I thought then. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Culver Battery, the Victorian Forts owner is keen to have their work recognised [4] Please reinstate my change. Vicarage (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating the new article RML 40 pounder gun. Your work to improve Wikipedia is appreciated! Northamerica1000(talk) 09:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you took off the picture of 1 in machine guns from HMS gannet from the article about the Nordenfelt machine gun up to 1 in calibre. I remain confused what the difference is supposed to be between that article titled Nordenfelt gun which says it is about machine guns up to 1 in and the separate article titled 1-in Nordenfeld gun about 1 in nordenfelt machine guns. Regards, Sandpiper (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there, I've tidied up the article to make clear it covers the anti-personnel weapon, typically 0.45 inch. I separated the two articles because one was purely anti-personnel, i.e. a typical machine-gun, whereas the 1-inch gun was for use against small vessels, intended to penetrate into boilers etc. Of course, I'm just one contributor, and I'm open to being corrected ! regards. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help identifying this gun? I suspect BL 6 inch Mk VII naval gun, but am not sure --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems ! Firstly, no date but possibly Boer War. At that time the British 6-inch Mk VII gun was brand-new, and the Navy would not normally allow any to be deployed other than on its ships - only obsolete and/or unneeded guns were released for land use, and at this point the new BL 6-inch Mk VII was a key naval asset. My research has only turned up the deployment of a single 6-inch gun for field use in this war, a QF 6-inch gun which was by then obsolete and certainly is not this gun, and several were also deployed on armoured trains. Also, while the carriage does look like the "Percy Scott" design of the Boer War and still used in WWI, the wheels are too small, only half the size I have typically seen used for 4.7-inch and 6-inch Mk VII guns on the "Percy Scott" carriage. Also, I haven't seen any wheels like this (look like steam tractor wheels) used on Boer War artillery, photos I've seen show ether small wooden wagon wheels, large flat plate wheels or wooden spoked wheels of RML 40-pounder carriages. The gun barrel has steps and does not look like the QF 4.7 inch, but does match the profile for a BL 6-inch Mk VII : but is closer in size to 4.7 than six inch, compared to the man - see this photo of a BL 6-inch Mk VII gun on Percy Scott carriage in WWI for comparison : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/6_inch_Mk_VII_field_gun_firing_LAC_3521906.jpg. A clear detailed breech view is usually decisive for identification but we don't have it here. In other words, a mystery ! I suggest you contact Carl Hoehler <cahoehler@gmail.com> who lives in SA and has done research into this topic. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep digging and contact Carl to try and get a positive id.

Almost definitely Second Boer war. British artillery at Quaggaspoort and the photo is from a set among other Second Boer War photos

The carriage is totally different from the one used on the QF 6 inch /40 naval gun from HMS Terrible (1895) at Ladysmith and I have not yet come across a reference that any of the three QF 6 were deployed as far north as Pretoria. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think of a boxer winding up a punch to hit someone, when the commentator describes him as moving from "side to side" what do you see in your minds eye? Do you see someone shuffling from left to right and vice versa or someone pivoting on one foot. You of course know exactly what traverse means, but anyone who needs the term explained in plain English could be misled.

This is all rather moot I think, as I realise that I have become stuck in a pre-wiki way of doing things, in which descriptions had to be in the text, the ideal solution of course is to remove the description from the article completely and instead provide a wikilink to the traverse section of the gun laying article, where those who need it explained can find a far better explaination than a couple of words in brackets.--KTo288 (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rod. I thought you may be interested in (and perhaps answer) this question:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#What_kind_of_gun_turret_is_this.3F

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some two years ago you asked me about this gun. Just in case you are still looking for answer - it's post-war Italian modernization of the 100mm Skoda 14/19, called Obice da 105/22 mod 14/61. See [5]. Bukvoed (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking over the page. I'm wondering about making a proposal to merge it with the Alberich page. Do you have an opinion?Keith-264 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I think I exhausted the sources on Alberich in the section on the Hindenburg Line, which seems to me to be insufficient for a page (sadly). I had to struggle to find much about the French and Germans apart from what's in the OH and Philpott. I would have proposed a merger already but the process is too cumbersome to bother. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen some edits about IWM pictures that came from your work. Thank you its good to meet such a productive editor. Victuallers (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't mind my removal of this book you added from the Hiroshima Nagasaki article. The only review I've seen of this book (in the Australian War Memorial's magazine Wartime) was highly critical, and Ham is not an expert on the topic - his main focus is on Australian military history, where he's something of a journeyman author. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 11:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC), in 5"/38 Caliber gun talk, you asked why the 5"/38 Caliber gun clearing charge was short. I have expanded the article to explain the reason. I hope it helps. FTC Gerry

Thanks. Good Work. Thanks for the upgrade. as I understand the text then, there may be garbage in the breech region, so a shorter case avoids it. ?? regards, RodRcbutcher (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your "??". To me, the "breech region" means the after end of the chamber near the breechblock. My understanding is that the usual fouling is cork plug remnants left from the extracted powder case at the forward end of the chamber near the projectile. As explained to me by a number of Chief Gunner's Mates, when the projectile and powder case are rammed into the chamber together, the case's cork plug gets some what crushed by the force of seating the projectile into to rifling. And, in the process of being crushed, it also gets wedged into the bore. Then when the case gets extracted, all or part of the crushed and wedged plug may be left behind. Rather than debate the issue about whether there is something stuck up there that would prevent a full or reduced charge case from fitting in the chamber, the shorter clearing charge is used automatically. Regards. FTC Gerry (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rcbutcher,

In case you didn't know, on 23 November, the State Library is offering us a backstage pass and we are having a WWI editathon afterwards. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a great opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

It should be an interesting event, so I hope you can come. As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you would like to participate. Hope to see you there! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great you can come! I added your name to the project page. Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See you tomorrow! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article on a gun is linked in a ship article, it's a bit superfluous to add in a conversion as well. To cover all the bases, I did generally add a conversion later when discussing gun performance data. So you might want to look over those articles to which you've added them and see if they were converted elsewhere in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember me asking if the Alberich page should be merged with Hindenburg Line? I think I've found enough material to flesh it out, which I'm quite pleased about. I've found a way to read parts of Der Weltkrieg so it won't be too one-sided either.Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to HMS Brazen (H80) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |Ship armament=4 × 1 - [[4.7 inch QF Mark XII|4.7-inch (120 mm)) Mk IX gun]]s<br />

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there's generally no need to have a page with an unparenthesised title that redirects straight to a page whose title contains a disambiguator, like you did at Panjandrum; titles should generally be as simple as possible. I've undone all your page moves that have caused this problem. I discovered that you'd unnecessarily moved the James Drake article (admittedly a long time ago) after this edit appeared on my watchlist. Graham87 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in a proposal to include that article among the 1,000 Wikipedia:Vital articles. The discussion is here. Thewellman (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rabbi#What_do_they_actually_do_.3F --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not real thrilled with adding conversions to already linked weapons in the infobox, but I can live with it. However, I am concerned that doing so generally adds an extra line. I've already gotten comment that our infoboxes dominate the articles so I'm sensitive to anything that makes them longer. So if you want to add the conversions, please delete the Mk #, etc. from the infobox as that will generally keep things on a single line. I've started to delete torpedo tube locations to cut that entry to a single line. Remember that the infobox is supposed to contain the most important info, not complete info. To my mind caliber, disposition and number of guns is the most important thing, not necessarily the conversion or the name of the gun. Both of those are available if the reader clicks on the link or reads the description paragraph. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your good-faith edit because you changed the original and linked to mountain guns with no reference (such as you put on my talk page would be acceptable and should be in the body of the article not the lede) or explanation of the difference - this is confusing since they are being used as field guns. I have restored the lede to 2 7lb guns and moved your link to the 'order of battle' section where its better placed and added a fact tag which you can remove when you add the appropriate citation and, if you like, add further explanation of the differences between normal field guns, mountain guns and the 7lb hybrids your articles described. You should add these references to the Mtn Gun article as well. This is relatively 'new' information and the articles you linked to on my talk page should be added to both wp articles to support and clarify your statements.Tttom1 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Move to Commons Barnstar
	For your hard work in moving quality images to Commons and for your long term dedication to the project, I hereby award you this Move to Commons Barnstar. Thanks for your work and keep it up! TLSuda (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work moving images to Commons. I just wanted to let you know that the template {{Now Commons}} has a date parameter; please give the date in "yyyy-mm-dd" format. This places it into the appropriate subcategory of Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons or Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent batch I uploaded, I did slightly more efficiently, so that the nowcommons tag gets generated as e.g. {{Now Commons|1=File:Aleutian P-40E.jpg|2=no|date=2014-04-30 }}. Is this correct ? regards, Rod. ,Rcbutcher (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of gardens may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Stanley Park, Vancouver]], British Columbia|Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were very wrong in moving Stanley Park arbitrarily and without discussion; PRIMARYTOPIC=NODISAMBIG was established long ago. Central Park is another example of a best-known park by that name being undisambiguated; your undiscussed move I'm not in the mood to submit to the bearpit known as WP:Requested moves and will find an admin to correct you; after that reversion of your BOLD move, you can file an RM. I'd have reverted it myself it you hadn't made a further edit; but have redirected the main PRIMARYTOPIC title back to the Vancouver item. And , you're where again? Never mind, I already looked....Skookum1 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the big picture it's just another park. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's just a park. The argument to move Stanley Park was more valid than some of your other moves; there were at least a few other articles that shared the name. In this instance, WP:DAB normally would apply except for the fact that the park is definitely the primary topic in all three criteria. In Canada at least it's as notable as Central Park or Yellow Stone National Park. I have started a discussion at Talk:Stanley Park if you would like additional input towards as community consensus if you're still set on moving it. Mkdw^talk 21:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rcbutcher, I noticed you have been notified about unnecessary disambiguation pages and moving pages in the past. Additionally, a number of editors have also reverted moves you have made. I have spent the last little while restoring a few pages that seem to have fallen under the jurisdiction of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or would have been deemed unique enough that WP:COMMONNAME would have been the preference. This is not to say the moves are inappropriate but care should be taken to ensure that community consensus is reached before proceeding -- especially when dealing with major landmarks. I would also like to mention that WP:DAB and WP:TITLE have several guidelines where if the name is not shared, even if the place's name is seemingly "generic", it does not mean the title should be moved to be more descriptive. If the article title is also the name of the place, it prevails unless there is a valid disambiguation reason. I noticed in a few cases there were no conflicts to the name of the park and they were simply moved because the name of the park was non-descriptive I would like to state for the open record that Skookum1 did not contact me in regards to this matter and that I was alerted to the matter because I had the article Vancouver watchlisted. My regards, Mkdw^talk 21:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. No more renaming without consensus. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fathom the logic you used when you recently removed the section about Spanish guns. These guns were BL 15 inch Mk I naval guns, made by Vickers, and used by the Spanish Navy. Thus, the Spanish guns should have mention in an article about BL 15 inch Mk I naval guns.

The Spanish Navy had these guns in active use right up to the present century, which is much more recent that their use by the British Navy. The Spanish guns are still in situ, and several are open to the public, which is not the case with any other example.

You may argue that these are land-based guns, and therefore not sea-going 'naval' guns. With such a pedantic view one had better also remove the section about the Singapore and Dover guns. One should then remove all references to Coastal Batteries in the BL 9.2 inch gun Mk IX–X article, etc., etc.

Assuming that you are not so pedantic, I ask you to please replace the Spanish Guns section that you recently removed from the BL 15 inch Mk I naval gun article. Rayf 09:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayForma (talk • contribs)

(I'm sending you this note, rather than simply fixing things myself, because it looks like you were the main person to work on both images in question, so I figured you'd want to know.)

While reading Oscar Parkes' British Battleships a few days ago, I noticed that the Wikipedia infobox photos for the sailing ironclads HMS Caledonia and HMS Lord Warden did not seem to match the images and descriptions for these ships in Parkes. Eventually I realized that the photos had been swapped, with Caledonia's photo being labeled as Lord Warden and vice versa.

It turns out that this error comes from the original source for those photos, page 81 of the June 25, 1897 issue of The Navy & Army Illustrated. It doesn't surprise me that such a generalist publication could make an error like this; both ships were fairly similar wooden-hulled ironclads which might be easily confused by the inexperienced, and neither was still in existence, making it less likely the error would be caught.

I've remarked about this in more detail in the talk pages of both articles and the talk pages for the Commons image files. Incidentally, the first image uploaded for Lord Warden was actually correct, but you had fixed it to match the source.

Naturally you'll want something better than my say-so for this. Parkes' British Battleships seems to be a good reference here; the 1990 reprint depicts and discusses Caledonia and her sisters on pages 54–58 and Lord Warden and her sister on pages 93–97.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help and quick response! (I fixed a few image links which were pointed to the wrong place by a redirect-processing script. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I've recently observed that you are responsible for the additional section: "Weapons of comparable role, performance and era" probably also "Tanks of comparable role, performance and era" in multiple articles. I changed your entries here: 1, 2, 3, 4; Tanks: 5, 6

I beg to differentiate, just because you have similarities in muzzle velocity, tapered-bore, length and performances it doesn't make them equal. Same counts to the tanks, they are comparable in size, weight, performance and fielding. However, I won't run after you and change those additional section to the correct meaning. I request you, to do it yoursef. Thank you, best regards Bouquey (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "comparable" does mean equal. It means "...very similar and can be compared to each other" "capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison", "worthy of comparison" etc (look online for dictionaries). I thought carefully about all the compasisons I added and won't be changing them. Feel free to make constructive changes as you see fit : you may like to add provisos where differences are great. But please realise that no claims are made that any weapon is exactly as powerful, accurate whatever as the others. The section is intended rather to provide approximate equivalents. "Compare and contrast" is a useful tool in research, and I think something valuable wass lost when this section was removed from military aircraft pages due to flame wars among fanboys who wanted every little detail to be the same before they accepted two aircraft as "comparable" : I don't want that to happen in this case. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not here to discuss the meaning by definition. In my Oxford Dictionary it does clearly say that the word "comparable" is meant to "capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison" You can not say the German Panther tank is equivalent to the Russian T-34, just because both have sloped armor, high mobility and role. The fact is, the T-34 weights 26t, with 17,5 hp/tonne and providing ~95 mm effective armor (DFP), while the Panther has much bigger size, weights 45t, has 15,4hp/tonne and DFP provides ~140 mm effective armor. Same to the anti-tank weapons, they may have similarities in muzzle velocity, tapered-bore, length and performances but won't called from any authors expertise as equivalent. The German 88 mm Kwk 43 L/71 has 6.248 m barrel length and a MV of 1,000 m/s wich makes it comparable to the Russian 85 mm ZiS-53 of similar caliber at first sight, but outclass it by a large margin in performances. It rather will be compared to a Russian 100 mm D-10-T or 122 mm D-25-T in performance, which were much bigger and firing a much heavier shell. Try to compare the ~10 kg shell of the KwK 43 to the enormous 25kg shell of the Russian D-25-T gun. You won't find any equivalency! So please, accept my request and change the meaning into the much appropriate definition of an "contemporary" gun and same to comparative Tanks. Thanks, best regards Bouquey (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've changed some more pages to the much appreciate description and hope so, you would take my advice to change further additional section to the same level. Thanks, regards Bouquey (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thousand-bomber raids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Harris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"An en dash is used for the names of two or more people in an attributive compound." Two proper names here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Cecil (lion), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across QF 4.7-inch Gun Mk I–IV and noticed that you were the last person to substantively edit it. Do you know if these weapons were the type that the US Army adopted circa 1898 as the "4.7-inch Armstrong Gun"? About 36 were used by the US Army for coast defense. I am heavily into US coast defense articles and would like to add a section on US service if this is the case. RobDuch (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand from manuals I found that it's the same gun. Please add whatever you can. These were state-of-the art guns at the time and perhaps the US wanted to learn from them... unusual for the US to buy Brit guns. It's always difficult to find the reason for such decisions so many years later.Rcbutcher (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request you revert this. The page is not a history, it is exactly what it says it is - a list of terms. It does not pretend to be any sort of history. Further, are you aware of the need to rigidly retain section names to avoid breaking links ? An article on "history" is a far more ambitious and complex project and should stand totally alone and reference this list under See also. What you have done is equait a list of battles to a history of an army. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history title doesn't fit. And even if I didn't agree, I would still respect your reversion request (per WP:BRD).

In order to revert it properly and preserve the page's edit history, I'll need to have an admin speedy delete the page at List of British ordnance terms to make way for the move of History of British artillery, 1870–1945. You do not object to this, do you? The Transhumanist 03:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds like the proper way to do it, thanks for being understanding. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up... I've put in a request, though the admin looks like he took the weekend off. Should be back soon. The Transhumanist 12:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has be restored to its previous title, but I forgot about the talk page. So I have put in a request for that. The Transhumanist 12:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Move conversion complete. The Transhumanist 13:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! Rcbutcher (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see your contribution in the discussion section before I updated the article, otherwise I'd have asked first. I came across Young's article already in Feb 2015 and added it to the German version. Aldebaraner (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RcButcher, there is an ongoing discussion about professional boxing record tables and I would appreciate if you could share your opinion or at least voice you support or opposition. It would be great if you could voice your opinion here in the "RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables" and "MoS:Boxing Final call" section. Cheers!--Fallengrademan (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Rc - My apologies for incorrectly editing "Results were unsatisfactory, leading to the gun being bored out to 12 inches (305 mm) and firing a 706-pound-12-ounce (320.6 kg) shell."

The only reference on the internet to "706-pound 12-ounce shell" was in "Handbook of the R.M.L. 12'5-inch 38-ton gun, marks I and II. (Land service.)." But the 12 oz portion of the "706-pound-12-ounce" was not explained as far as I could tell. Is the 12 oz a reference to the explosive charge of the shell, the F.G black powder?

Regards, Doug Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden1937 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Hi Ron - I noted your explanation regarding my question about the 706 pound 12oz shell. Thanks. I did a face palm on myself upon reading your text, lol. Guess it has been so long that I saw a weight represented as xx pounds xxoz that it did not compute. BTW, I really appreciate the work you did to present the information about the sell and guns. I know it takes a lot of work. Regards, Doug TDurden1937 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you have changed the name of the category in Wikimedia. If you look at the photos (e.g. entry to works) you will see its correct name is Thos. W. Ward and, if you like, Limited. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC),[reply]

Much appreciated if you could check the book for an additional photo credit. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No credits in the book so possibly by the author Mr Gibbon. I can't find his date of death so it may be that this photograph is not yet in the public domain. I think when I originally uploaded it I assumed from Mr Gibbon's published works that he was already fairly elderly in 1920 - but I have no evidence that he died before 1946. Rcbutcher (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the book published first US or UK? Technical question I know but it affects if the images from it can go on Commons or not. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Published in UK. Rcbutcher (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which means based on the information it might not be able to be on Commons, Bother. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated if you could confirm with IWM if this is still under copyright, or whethr it's now under OGL terms? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They claim a "non-commercial use" licence, which doesn't allow use on Wikimedia Commons so we have to continue its use here on English Wiki as "fair use". Rcbutcher (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleaning up on the article and changed the title, thought you'd like to know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I fail to understand this edit. Per {{infobox boxer}} and many other infoboxes, the field autoconverts the first figures (imperials), so there is no need to tack on the bracketed metrics; likewise the manually inserted ½ symbols actually appear smaller than +1/2, which produces the same symbol but in a normal size. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

re: BTW, I dimly remember you being involved with a project to restore an old Canadian variant of a Bristol Beaufort. How did that go ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We (the royal we!) have a Bristol Bolingbroke (Blenheim) bomber/trainer in restoration at CFB Winnipeg. The aircraft was a typical "barn find" that was abandoned in a farmer's field, and sitting untouched for 70 years. Presently, the airframe is disassembled, and being worked on piece by piece. It looks essentially complete, so that's a good thing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rcbutcher. I came across some very good questions you left on the Rabbi talk page in 2014 and I decided to try to answer them by adding new sections and filling in the gaps. I started a section on Compensation and hope to do Functions next. Thanks for pointing in the right direction and I hope the material is useful. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan[reply]

What are you on about calling them 120 mm metric guns? The guns weren't designed in metric so why are you insisting that they be measured with metric first?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were designed and built as 120-mm guns, "4.7 inch" was just a convenient name. See Jane's and all other serious sources. See e.g. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1500108995 and http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=4039822 Rcbutcher (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but since their official designation was 4.7 inches, kindly leave that convenient name as the first thing that people read. And with the RBL 40 pounder Armstrong gun being 4.75", that caliber has a long history in the RN. Armstrong might well have been hoping for international sales if the gun could use existing 120mm shells while the RN was indifferent about the exact caliber since it wasn't worried about ammunition compatibility with the old 40 pdrs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calibre should be stated accurately in the infobox, it is separate to the gun's common name. And 4.724 inch was a conversion from 120 mm, not vice versa. Otherwise we get idiocies like the conversion tool being used to give 4.7 inch = 119 mm. Rcbutcher (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's a manual with 4.724" on the cover, I'm perfectly happy to use that measurement first, regardless if that caliber was chosen for compatibility with foreign 120 mm gun or not. Especially since that measurement was the first one given on the cover. I absolutely agree with you that the actual caliber should be given in the infobox, like the German 15 cm guns that are actually 149.1 mm; I just want the measurement system used by the designing nation used first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can live with the official name coming first e.g. 4.724-inch = 120 mm so long as the actual bore in mm is specified. Similar problem occurs with British "4.5-inch" guns actually being 4.45-inch = 113 mm. I'm starting to wonder whether such minor details actually matter... Rcbutcher (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've looked, but I don't really remember people like Hogg and Gander, much less Friedman or Campbell, getting all fussed about the difference between nominal caliber and the actual distance between the lands. I'm relatively content if the actual caliber is given in the infobox for those people who might actually care about such precision. In the main body, I've sometimes handled it by saying that the gun fired a shell of such-and-such diameter, using the exact size down to 3 digits, and then follow with more stats.

Did you actually find a source that said that Armstrongs designed the 4.7-inch gun for compatibility with 120mm ammunition? That was sheer speculation on my part and I've never seen anything that says as much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the earliest references I've found to British (i.e. Armstrong) "4.7-inch" guns report them being supplied to foreign navies. E.g. "... a 4.7 inch quick-firing gun was tested and proven successful on the cruiser Piemonte, constructed in Britain for Italy in 1887". ( https://books.google.com.au/books?id=-5EeCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=origin+of+Armstrong+4.7-inch+gun+calibre&source=bl&ots=iI7OWJIQUM&sig=KZMCys1IoAA2oP9QgazwSoWLTVE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXn_X_-oTSAhWKVrwKHSwdB48Q6AEIQDAH )

See Italian_cruiser_Piemonte

Similar case was the "100-ton gun" : built at 450-mm for Italy, deployed by Britain as "17.72-inch". Rcbutcher (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hei my frind i need this four codees for kandahar can you please help me this is the codes : top, bottom, left, right. I want to make one map system like this for kandahar in pashto wiki>> return { name = 'Kabul', top = 34.8019, bottom = 34.2142, left = 68.8486, right = 69.494, image = 'Location map Afghanistan Kabul.svg', } Kdh (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit inserted incorrect grammar. In this case, "whom" is the object of the preposition "to", so it should be in the objective case ("whom", not "who"), which it was, until you "corrected" it. The better phrasing would be "When asked in a November 18, 1991 interview to whom the altar was dedicated". 32.218.44.24 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Shell 4.5in HE Shrapnel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Shell Q.F. High Explosive 4.5 in Howitzer Mark V, plugged.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in communication with friends of Roderick Charles Butcher (11 November 1954 – 28 April 2017) since he passed away, and "Rcbutcher" stopped editing here at Wikimedia (14 November 2005 – 28 April 2017). Rod's extraordinary contributions to Wikimedia, especially on WWI history and imagery, was mentioned in an eulogy at the service held Tuesday 16th May, 2017 at 12:45pm at Northern Suburbs Memorial Gardens and Crematorium, North Ryde.

Vale Roderick Charles Butcher (Rcbutcher).

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My condolences go out to his friends and family. RIP Rcbutcher.--John Cline (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rcbutcher was one of our most prolific contributors to Wikimedia Commons, with over 228,000 edits on that project making a significant contribution to the quality and accessibility of our collections. This is sad news. I only knew him by his account name in our virtual world, occasionally working together in a quiet and collegiate way. His many years of steady improvements to avionics and military images using his expert knowledge in these topics will be much missed, and leaves a legacy that benefits public knowledge and education. I am grateful for his volunteer work and enjoyment of the subject. --Fæ (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My condolences, too. We had a lot of very friendly exchanges on my talk page. He was always eager to learn something new about the operation of heavy jets in order to categorize files in a correct manner. I miss a very professional and friendly colleague. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to hear this - a valuable contributor to the wiki Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 15:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sad news indeed. One of the rare contributors one could really look up to. My condolences. --Prüm (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just discovered this, and join in the tributes above. He was knowledgeable and always willing to help. He is missed. His death notice from The Sydney Morning Herald is here. Kablammo (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Me too Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Montgomery Flagg, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 12:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dreadnought hoax has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Works by Francis Dodd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:DreadnoghtHoaxEveningPostWellington14April1910.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Works by William Haselden indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]