Please remove the above template if your return to editing. Welcome!

Hello, Viv Hamilton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, 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!  --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image to wikimedia commons, but now I have found the upload file link on the right hand menu, it would be better in wikipedia as an image. I've uploaded it again with a slightly different name. How do I remove the other copy from wikimedia commons? The file name to remove is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NAS_Logo_%26_Wording.jpg

Thanks Viv Hamilton 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use the {{db|reason}} or {{ifd|reason}} template on the Image page. See: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 19:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. It is now removed Viv Hamilton 09:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its ok to go ahead and put that in the women archaeologist category. People doing reserach or looking for a woman specifically will be able to find the info on that page. I haven't had a chance to flesh out the category yet, but I think there are some others hiding around WP. I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks for the heads up! pschemp | talk 05:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an existing article List of shipwrecks that I think needs some major restructuring. I've tried putting suggestions on the discussion page, but these haven't had any response. Before I do the bold edits myself, I'd like the advice of an experienced editor. I don't plan to delete the material, but I do think it needs hiving off into sub-articles and some of the current contributors might not like that.

The page is a List of, but doesn't seem to me to meet the guidelines for such pages i.e. that they list wiki articles for further research. Currently this list of shipwrecks is basically an external link farm. It can never be comprehensive - The shipwreck index for UK already lists 40,000 wrecks for UK alone and is still growing. I've proposed notability criteria for shipwrecks on the discussion page, but had no responses.

My plan is to create sub-articles for each country with external links for listed wrecks e.g. Shipwrecks of England and move all of the shipwrecks that are not notable (external link only or no links) onto the sub-article, along with other information that might be of interest to researchers in that region (general sources, maritime history, wreck diving in that country, archaeological interest) and link the notable wrecks under see also.

The main List of shipwrecks page would therefore end up organised by region/country, with each listed country having a sub-article on Shipwrecks of ... and a list of notable (i.e. with wiki articles) wrecks.

Please advise Viv Hamilton 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting sounds very reasonable to me. Remember whatever you do can be undone so you won't be losing anything by updating things, I'd suggest you approach it incrementally, so start on a few countries and see how they go, people are far more likely to object or join in once changes become apparent, you can always refine the proposal over time. Regarding other contributors complaining since you are altering their stuff, remember WP:OWN and the comment on every edit page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" --pgk^(talk) 10:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for writing. I have not paid much attention to the other links in the articles from which I removed the links. While that site may or may not be informative, its primary purpose is self-referential; one of the first things you see is this person's blog. The link cannot remain per Wikipedia policy. RadioKirk talk to me 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numerous mods in[[Category:Methods and principles in archaeology]] especially Excavation and related articles Harris matrix etc. I would want to merge; practice, science, principles and methods into one thing? i see little difference between science and methods and principles?

I am currently trying to populate the category with diagrams of some utility. I am fairly ambitious about the degree of detail I can put into this stuff. I will try and get some photos at work next week of archaeologist doing things. Boris 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visit User:Esoltas/WikiProject Shipwrecks/Votes please. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 18:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that you have a link to HMS Pomone on your User page which was accurate at the time, but I have added articles to another Pomone and converted HMS Pomone itself into a disambiguation page. I don't want to update another Wikipedian's user page, so you may want to update the link yourself to HMS Pomone (1805).

Cheers, Mmccalpin 17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cheers should be more stuff coming in a few weeks currently supervising a excavation (will post some nice pics)Boris 17:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we need to review the cats dating methods.. Harris matrix is NOT a dating method but a underlying principle and tool of excavation. The use of the harris matrix in relative dating/dating methodology covers this. The harris matrix is a tool to describe and record a SEQUENCE not dates. I feel we should populate the methods and principals section with a greater volume of topics first before dividing them up into sun cats. while the harris matrix is allied to to relative dating i feel it is such a strong component of modern excavation it should be centrally placed in principles.. its almost core in importance. I ma not sure how to organise things in archaeological methods but the cats do not work for me at all. there is a overly complex subdivsion of subcats IMO. what do you think ?Boris 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea. it needs doing. I am not sure on the differences between methods, science and practice. it needs someone from outside archaeology to see whats wrong here. All the following are CORE excavation METHOD related and should be easily accessible to each other

• Alignment (archaeology)
• Archaeological association
• Archaeological context
• Archaeological horizon
• Archaeological natural
• Archaeological phase
• Archaeological plan
• Archaeological record
• Archaeological section
• Archaeological site
• Cut (archaeology)
• Excavation
• Feature (archaeology) there could a sub cat for all the GENERIC types
• Fill (archaeology)
• Harris matrix
• Layer (archaeology) (not written yet)
• Relationship (archaeology)
• Reverse stratigraphy
• Sequence (archaeological)
• Single context recording
• Spoil (archaeology)
• Stratification (archeology)
• Stratigraphy

the various trial trenching nad alternative digging methods could be compressed into a smaller number of merges IMO HTH Boris 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viv, thanks for your note and your interest. The question you ask is not as straightforard as it might seem it ought to be!... I'd like a few days' thought to compile a list of references that might actually be useful, rather than scatter a few random shots, if that's okay with you. When Ive done that I'll come back to this page with them. Is it more the trade, or the routes, or the vessels, that interest you, or perhaps all of these? I'll try to identify a cross-section of sources. You have a very fascinating field of interest! Please excuse the pomposity of a title, but there's another wikipedian with my name in Australia... Dr Steven Plunkett 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Viv, sorry to have been silent so long, have been visiting sick parent, and self laid low with dire ailments. Have not forgotten your request and am still thinking. bw, Dr Steven Plunkett 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you haven't been back here since my last posting but hope this might reach you: there's a day conference at St Nicholas Centre, Ipswich on October 27th 2007, called 'Ipswich Unearthed', which is mainly about Anglo-Saxon Ipswich from an archaeological point of view, and while it may not help specially with trading routes it will give some impression of the economy of the early town. Jude Plouviez, keith Wade, Paul Blinkhorn, Ian Riddler and others are advertised to speak. Although there is a charge this is only to cover costs as the object is to celebrate 25 years of the town's Ipswich Archaeological Trust. This would no doubt be a good occasion on which to get answers to the kind of question you are interested in, as there would be plenty of chance to talk to the speakers. I have 'stopped trading' now at my userpage but still remember your question, just had a rather dire spring. Best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 05:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you see this posting Steven. Sorry to hear about the tough time you have been having. I am certainly interested in the meeting and will do my best to be there. Thanks Viv Hamilton 16:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate if you would pop in to a discussion at Talk:HMS Prince of Wales (53)#Protected wreck status. I seem to recall you have some experience/knowledge of the Protection of Wrecks Act, and hope you can help point me in the right direction. Thanks! Maralia 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the request. I have responded to the discussion Viv Hamilton 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I did not really feel like a hero, yesterdayevening, and when reading some of the remarks left in my direction. (still other trolls do know where to find me .. ). I hope things with the Maritime Quest are moving on now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, working up RN ship stubs is a little hobby of mine. If you have any others that you want to suggest, let me know and I'll be happy to look up the sources and see if I can work up an article. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): IP exemption temporarily granted. Request handled by: Avi (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the blocking admin of your request. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to disable the accelerator, but I do not think that you will be blocked if you forget. :) And editing from another IP is OK, as the responsibility for the edits belongs tothe account, you, and the exemption will not "leak" to the other IP.Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see from your comment at User talk:Ohconfucius that you are interesting in date delinking. The tool is very easy to install and use. Just add

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

to User:Viv Hamilton/monobook.js. Then clear your cache using the instructions on that page (press Ctrl-Shit-R in firefox). Then when you have a page in edit mode, look for the blue text at the left of the page below 'What links here'. You will see text saying 'Delink dates to dmy' in blue. Just click it.

I hope that helps. Any questions, just ask me. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you have a look at the edits you did here. I think it just made a nonsense of the discussion about changing the warships template! Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry that one must have slipped. Someone else has already fixed it. Thank you for notifying me. -- Cat ^chi? 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Viv Hamilton, I've been trying to work on a solution to the problem with the List of maritime disasters article. If you take a look at this link User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2 you'll see the template that I've been working on. Personally, I would much rather list the entries by decades rather than by decending losses or wartimne vs peacetime but I've been working with what was there. I posted a request for opinions on the WikiProject Shipwrecks page to see if this would be the way to go. Shinerunner (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting your proposals, much better than mine <g>. This part of section 2 but registration alone is not sufficient criteria for registration: other sources should be available. doesn't quite make sense. Shoud it say but registration alone is not sufficient criteria for notability: other sources should be available. ? Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your new proposals. I haven't got time now to rewrite these in the way I want them to be presented. I agree with what is written, but wish to clarify and expand. My suggestion is to create two sections:-

Current ships

(definition: a ship currently in Naval or Merchant service).

Historic ships

(definition: a ship that has been scrapped, shipwrecked or preserved as a museum ship/exhibit).

I also wish to create two critera:-

Ocean going ships

(definition: ships that sail in international waters.

Non ocean going ships

(definition: ships that do not sail in international waters. e.g. The Great Lakes, Lake District and Scottish Lochs, River Rhine, Mississippi etc.

Lower limits of 500 tons to apply for historic non-sailing ships and non-ocean going non-sailing ships. For sailing ships a limit of 100 tons to apply.

Vessels under these limits may be notable in some circumstances. e.g. one of a few survivors of a once numerous class of ships/boats, such as the seven surviving Norfolk Wherries from a class that numbered in the hundreds.

Will let you ponder these thoughts and amend proposal or propose further amendments here. Will check this afternoon (2-3pm) for response. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had time to think about this a bit more, and propose the following to be added to the proposed guidelines for debate and consensus to be gained.

==Definitions==

Sailing ship - a ship powered primarily by sails. Fitment of an engine shall not disqualify such a vessel from being a sailing ship. Ships powered primarily by human muscle power, e.g. a trireme, shall broadly be considered as sailing ships.

Motorship - a ship propelled mechanichally by steam, electricity, diesel or nuclear power (list is not exhaustive).

Current - a ship currently in Naval or Merchant service, or laid up pending rebuild, refit, repairs, scrapping or change of route.

Historic - a ship that has been scrapped or shipwrecked, or preserved as a museum or museum exhibit. Any vessel launched over 100 years ago (count years only). Any vessel included in a national register of historic ships or equivalent registers of cultural heritage.

Ocean going - any vessel that sails in International Waters, including coastal trading vessels

Non ocean going - Any vessel that sails inland waters, such as the Great Lakes, English Lakes, Scottish Lochs, River Rhine, Mississippi etc. Small pleasure craft and riverboats are generally inherently non-notable.

==Minimum tonnage to assure inherent notability==

ocean going

Current motorship:- 1,000 tons.

Historic motorship:- 500 tons.

Current and historic sailing ship:- 100 tons

non-ocean going

Current motorship:- 500 tons

Historic motorship:- 250 tons

Current and historic sailing ship: 50 tons

Note

Vessels under these limits may be notable in some circumstances. e.g. one of a few survivors of a once numerous class of ships/boats, such as the eight surviving Norfolk Wherries from a class that numbered in the hundreds.

Note copied to talk page of proposals, comments there please. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. Responses are on the guidelines talk page Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think its time that this issue was sorted. Looks like we are generally agreed as to the guidelines now. I'd suggest that you post a note of the Ships WP talk page saying that you intend to create the guidelines and give a reasonable amount of time - say a week - for final discussions. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that myself. Actually I was thinking of moving the page to the project space and posting the message. What do you reckon? Viv Hamilton (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could move it to project space, but if you give notice of intention of the Project talk page, it gives everyone time to fully study, assess and further discuss it. Move it directly to project space and there could be complaints. I'd have no objection to it moving directly to project space myself. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viv, I noticed that you have been working on a set of guidelines for the notability of ships - Good stuff. I wonder if you would like to give your opinions on the AFD debate for Bonanza Express. Cheers WhaleyTim (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viv, can you add the names of all the ships that were transferred to the various governments to the Empire ships article> Mjroots (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes will do - but it will be next week. Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferries - Empire Roach was a coaster. Did I miss another ship with this name? Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. I've just corrected the tonnage. The details match. I think it was built as the ferry class, but they had derricks so it would also make a good coaster. It isn't duplicated in the coasters section. Viv Hamilton (talk) 13:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in Mitchell and Sawyer is with that of Chub. Both were operated by Townsend Bros. Viv Hamilton (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend Brothers were ferry operators Viv Hamilton (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll do an infobox for her, but not tonight. BTW, there was a MoWT ship with a "Crown" prefix, what was her name? Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes only one (before Empire prefix introduced).

• Crown Arun (p431). 2,372 gt Built Neptun AG., Rostok in 1938 as Hannah Boge for J M K Blumenthal, Hamburg. 302ft * 45 ft. Engines C4cyl.
• Captured 3.9.1939 by Royal Navy in North Atlantic. Renamed Crown Arun (MOWT).
• Hannah Boge was bound from Nova Scotia with a cargo of woodpulp and in process of dsguising herself but still wearing a German flag. Prize taken to Pentland Firth arriving Kirkwall 5.9.39
• 17.9.1940 sunk by submarine (U99) torpedo off North West Scotland 58.02N 14.18W.

Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox added to article. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've now created the SS Crown Arun article. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the names are there in the infobox. I'll get round to rewriting the article eventually. Nice work expanding the Empire ship article btw. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm posting this notice here since you're listed as a member of the Shipwrecks project. A merge proposal has been suggested on the project talk page here. Suggestions and ideas are welcome. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aseem Malhotra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it now - Thank you whoever created the bot! Viv Hamilton (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]