User talk:Rcbutcher

This Wikipedian is deceased. Respectful comments of remembrance may be left below.

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 talk page. 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]