This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ben, in the article on Tonnant class ship of the line and the several individual ship's articles linked to it, there are at least four ships for which the wrong launch date has been used in the titles. I have put accurate launch dates into the main article, but the titles of other articles need changing (and any links therefrom). The Indomptable was launched in 1790, not in 1789. The Franklin was launched in 1797 not in 1798. TheFoudroyant was launched in 1799, not in 1800. The Bucentaure was launched in 1803, not in 1804. The name-ship of the Class is only covered by an article referenced by the date she was captured by the British, while she was actually launched and saw several years service in the French Navy before her capture. Can you kindly adjust the titles of the various articles?
There were actually only 8 ships of the original Tonnant Class. The other three ships listed in the article as I found it were three of the numerous Bucentaure class (including the name ship of that class), which was a slightly modified version of the Tonnant Class by the same designer. At least 24 of this modified design were begun, although a few were never completed. I have started to correct this by showing the Bucentaures as a separate group within this chapter, but I have more to add later. Rif Winfield ( talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ben, sorry to be late in getting back to you. There are various sources on French warships of the sailing era, but the most comprehensive and accurate are the series by Cmdt Alain Demerliac - I list the titles below, although obviously the publication dates vary. I suggest you quote these as your sources: Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1614 a 1661; Nomenclature des Vaisseaux du Roi-Soleil de 1661 a 1715; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1715 a 1774; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1774 a 1792; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1774 a 1792; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1792 a 1799; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1799 a 1815; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1814 a 1848 (the last-named in preparation). Alain Demerliac (Editions Omega, Nice - various dates).
These are all large paper-baked volumes - rather expensive individually, I'm afraid. Rif Winfield ( talk) 13:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject DYK 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. i noticed you are rather interested in ships, and was wondering if you might have an idea what the ships are shown in this photograph of the Grand Harbour at Malta. I was also puzzled what the stuff on the sides of the ships is. The funnels seem to have different things painted on them which might suggest they are merchantmmen. The stuff on the sides also seems to be on another picture of a warship (I think probably HMS Victoria/sans Pareill of about 1890) shown in the background of a boatrace, which I havnt posted but which comes from the same book about George Tryon. Might be a climbing net? If they are military ships then it might be something with military significance? Thanks. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's
Peer and
A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this
Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.
Roger Davies
talk
12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Hi, I am reviewing Edward Riou for GA and have entered a comment at Talk:Edward Riou/GA1 and will add more. I hope you don't mind if I copy edit small issues in the article, rather than listing them. Feel free to revert any errors I make. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Benea,
You are completely mistaken. As a matter of fact I think it is ludicrous to call the category Christ's Hospital Old Blues. Can I just correct you on what your doing. It is analogous to calling Old Etonians, Eton College Old Etonians. Since Christ's Hospital is THE Bluecoat School its alumni are called Old Blues. As a matter of fact, User:81.145.168.194 tried to change Christ's Hospital Old Blues to Old Blues. As a matter of fact, User:81.145.168.194 is actually Christ's Hospital's wiki user. Look, I have had enough of this and I know that I am right. I may seem a little obstinate but am sick and tired of Wikipedia making stupid changes and to be honest no wonder thinks that this encyclopedia is unreliable.
Yours sincerely,
The 12th Doctor-- 92.13.128.96 ( talk) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Benea
Please could you do a shiplist page for
HMS Ringdove? I believe that
HMS Melita (1888) and the
Redbreast-class gunboat
HMS Ringdove (1889) swapped names in December 1915, just to confuse matters! Yours,
Shem (
talk)
15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have reviewed HMS Amazon (1799) for GA and passed it. Congratulations! (I copy edited it so please revert any errors I may have introduced.) Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Benea, I've got a question for you. At the same time I've been introducing categories for standard design ships of the United States Shipping Board (WWI era) and the United States Maritime Commission (WWII era), I've been simultaneously working on refining categories. I've come across the Bogue-class escort carrier article and the corresponding category ( Category:Bogue class aircraft carriers) and navbox ( Template:Bogue class escort carrier). According to the navbox, the RN versions of the Bogue-class carriers were called the Attacker class. According to Template:WWIIBritishShips (placed on the class article), the class is called either the Attacker class or the Ameer class (or both?). To further confuse matter, there's no Attacker- or Ameer-class category to help sort it out. With your RN resources, can you shed any light on which class name is correct, if either. Or if both are correct, any chance of providing a breakdown of which ships were Attacker and which were Ameer? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, I just started working on this stub however I've run into a small problem. Many sites I've looked at identify the ship as the SS Moldavia and some as the RMS Moldavia. If I remember correctly, a ship would revert to SS if it's not engaged in mail service. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Shinerunner ( talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, hope you are well. I have just finished the monster article Atlantic campaign of 1806 and its companion Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806, both of which contain a couple of redlinks for British ships. Do you think you will be able to put together articles, no matter how short on the ships named? If you can do any officers then that would also be great (except Richard Lee, who I am already working on). I've also asked User:Rama for assistance on the French ships and men involved. There is no rush on any of this, but I just wanted to draw it to your attention in case you were able to assist.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Benea
I would appreciate it if you could have a look at
Talk:Type_45_destroyer#HMS_Daring. Your opinion would carry a lot of weight with me, so if I'm getting it wrong, it would be a great way to find out. I'm driven by a keenness to ensure Wikipedia doesn't tell the world Daring is ready for service when there is still (disappointingly) a long way to go, and to ensure that the truth (where verifiable) is told. Yours, as always, in debt.
Shem (
talk)
14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree. Simply being commissioned does NOT mean that a ship is actually in service. And of course a ship is likely to be recommissioned on several occasions during its life. Rif Winfield ( talk) 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ben.
Could you kindly put in a disambiguation page for
French ship Impérial for me? The name only appears without any suffixed date (in a reference under
French ship Vengeur, to which reference the date 1805 needs attaching (the Vengeur of 1803 being renamed Impérial in 1805. I have put in an article separately for the Impérial of 1811 (later Royal Louis). There was also a flûte of 1794 bearing this name.
I am continuing (as and when time allows) to update the article on
List of ships of the line of France, to which additional 17th century (and early 18th) names still need attaching.
Rif Winfield (
talk)
18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ben. I have added some details of the 1794 ship. Incidentally, I am adding to List of French sail frigates as well as List of ships of the line of France; I don't think we have any structure yet for small French sailing warships. Rif Winfield ( talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Benea and BarretBonden,
Sorry for the recent edits on my talk page which is on your watchlist. I have been retrieving all of my discussions since I joined Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree that some are very interesting!!!
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 10th August 2009.
P. S. I copied this here incase you haven't got it on your watchlist anymore.
WP:DYK 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:DYK 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, I have done some work on the above two, with Rif Winfield providing me some good info on Calcutta. If you get a chance and have the time, could you look the two over and see if there is anything that I have missed, other than a shipbox on Armide, which I will leave to others to provide. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea: While working on something else, I came across the Minerva, and found that she was not listed in the HMS Minerva dab page. Phillips also doesn't seem to list her. Any idea why? Am I missing something? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 05:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 30th August 2009.
Conversation:
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 29th August 2009.
Let us start with the first paragraph:
See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.
The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.
I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.
Et cetera.
Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!
I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 30th August 2009.
Hi Benea, could I just remind you to please use the {{newDYKnom}} template when adding your articles to DYK suggestions? Otherwise, people end up having to fix things manually, like this. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Why has this article been nominated for deletion?? Tlb1000 ( talk) 11:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Also I would like to upload an image (album artwork) but cannot do this Tlb1000 ( talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to advise you that I have now created "Class" articles for the majority of the post ships of 1770-1810, i.e. for Sphinx Class post ship, Porcupine Class post ship, Banterer Class post ship, Laurel Class post ship, Cyrus Class post ship and Conway Class post ship. I have also adjusted the references in individual ship articles for each ship of these classes (where that ship article already exists) so that all links now work. Note that most of these individual ship articles still await writing. I still have to act similarly in respect of the four Hermes Class post ships of 1810, and of the pre-1770 post ships. It might also be worthwhile mentioning (apologies if you're already aware of this) that when time permits I try to amend the individual ship dimensions to give the actual (as measured upon delivery to the Navy) dimensions and tonnage of every vessel, since most writers tend to quote only the designed dimensions and tonnages. This is perfectly understandable, as (for example) my colleague David Lyon, in his Sailing Navy List, was quoting the details from the class plans. In fact, all wooden ships - unlike metal ones - tended to differ slightly from their designed dimensions. Usually this was only a matter of a few inches or even a fraction of an inch, but it did effect the figures used in the calculation of a ship's tonnage. Rif Winfield ( talk) 11:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, just mentioning that I have created (Curieux) or added to (Pomone) these two articles. Both lack infoboxes, and need a second eye. Any help would be most kind. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, Lovely work re the Rock, Maurice, and the Battle. Do you have any info re the sloop(s) HMS Fort Diamond that acted as tender to the Rock? Phillips had a little, but there was nothing in Winfield so what you see is all I found. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype ( talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal Avast, landlubber! ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal Avast, landlubber! ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reverts to Japanese food ship Mamiya. Bladeofgrass ( talk) 22:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
— Jake Wartenberg 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you've been brushing up the Hunt-class destroyer articles ( HMS Blackmore, Avon Vale, Bicester) - I appreciate it, thank you! ReuV talk 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
for finding those infobox error - and even working out where I cut and pasted from! Victuallers ( talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (talk • contribs) 04:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ben, in the article on Tonnant class ship of the line and the several individual ship's articles linked to it, there are at least four ships for which the wrong launch date has been used in the titles. I have put accurate launch dates into the main article, but the titles of other articles need changing (and any links therefrom). The Indomptable was launched in 1790, not in 1789. The Franklin was launched in 1797 not in 1798. TheFoudroyant was launched in 1799, not in 1800. The Bucentaure was launched in 1803, not in 1804. The name-ship of the Class is only covered by an article referenced by the date she was captured by the British, while she was actually launched and saw several years service in the French Navy before her capture. Can you kindly adjust the titles of the various articles?
There were actually only 8 ships of the original Tonnant Class. The other three ships listed in the article as I found it were three of the numerous Bucentaure class (including the name ship of that class), which was a slightly modified version of the Tonnant Class by the same designer. At least 24 of this modified design were begun, although a few were never completed. I have started to correct this by showing the Bucentaures as a separate group within this chapter, but I have more to add later. Rif Winfield ( talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ben, sorry to be late in getting back to you. There are various sources on French warships of the sailing era, but the most comprehensive and accurate are the series by Cmdt Alain Demerliac - I list the titles below, although obviously the publication dates vary. I suggest you quote these as your sources: Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1614 a 1661; Nomenclature des Vaisseaux du Roi-Soleil de 1661 a 1715; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1715 a 1774; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1774 a 1792; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1774 a 1792; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1792 a 1799; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1799 a 1815; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1814 a 1848 (the last-named in preparation). Alain Demerliac (Editions Omega, Nice - various dates).
These are all large paper-baked volumes - rather expensive individually, I'm afraid. Rif Winfield ( talk) 13:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject DYK 23:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. i noticed you are rather interested in ships, and was wondering if you might have an idea what the ships are shown in this photograph of the Grand Harbour at Malta. I was also puzzled what the stuff on the sides of the ships is. The funnels seem to have different things painted on them which might suggest they are merchantmmen. The stuff on the sides also seems to be on another picture of a warship (I think probably HMS Victoria/sans Pareill of about 1890) shown in the background of a boatrace, which I havnt posted but which comes from the same book about George Tryon. Might be a climbing net? If they are military ships then it might be something with military significance? Thanks. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's
Peer and
A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I hereby award you this
Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.
Roger Davies
talk
12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Hi, I am reviewing Edward Riou for GA and have entered a comment at Talk:Edward Riou/GA1 and will add more. I hope you don't mind if I copy edit small issues in the article, rather than listing them. Feel free to revert any errors I make. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Benea,
You are completely mistaken. As a matter of fact I think it is ludicrous to call the category Christ's Hospital Old Blues. Can I just correct you on what your doing. It is analogous to calling Old Etonians, Eton College Old Etonians. Since Christ's Hospital is THE Bluecoat School its alumni are called Old Blues. As a matter of fact, User:81.145.168.194 tried to change Christ's Hospital Old Blues to Old Blues. As a matter of fact, User:81.145.168.194 is actually Christ's Hospital's wiki user. Look, I have had enough of this and I know that I am right. I may seem a little obstinate but am sick and tired of Wikipedia making stupid changes and to be honest no wonder thinks that this encyclopedia is unreliable.
Yours sincerely,
The 12th Doctor-- 92.13.128.96 ( talk) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Benea
Please could you do a shiplist page for
HMS Ringdove? I believe that
HMS Melita (1888) and the
Redbreast-class gunboat
HMS Ringdove (1889) swapped names in December 1915, just to confuse matters! Yours,
Shem (
talk)
15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I have reviewed HMS Amazon (1799) for GA and passed it. Congratulations! (I copy edited it so please revert any errors I may have introduced.) Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Benea, I've got a question for you. At the same time I've been introducing categories for standard design ships of the United States Shipping Board (WWI era) and the United States Maritime Commission (WWII era), I've been simultaneously working on refining categories. I've come across the Bogue-class escort carrier article and the corresponding category ( Category:Bogue class aircraft carriers) and navbox ( Template:Bogue class escort carrier). According to the navbox, the RN versions of the Bogue-class carriers were called the Attacker class. According to Template:WWIIBritishShips (placed on the class article), the class is called either the Attacker class or the Ameer class (or both?). To further confuse matter, there's no Attacker- or Ameer-class category to help sort it out. With your RN resources, can you shed any light on which class name is correct, if either. Or if both are correct, any chance of providing a breakdown of which ships were Attacker and which were Ameer? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla ( talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, I just started working on this stub however I've run into a small problem. Many sites I've looked at identify the ship as the SS Moldavia and some as the RMS Moldavia. If I remember correctly, a ship would revert to SS if it's not engaged in mail service. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Shinerunner ( talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 00:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, hope you are well. I have just finished the monster article Atlantic campaign of 1806 and its companion Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806, both of which contain a couple of redlinks for British ships. Do you think you will be able to put together articles, no matter how short on the ships named? If you can do any officers then that would also be great (except Richard Lee, who I am already working on). I've also asked User:Rama for assistance on the French ships and men involved. There is no rush on any of this, but I just wanted to draw it to your attention in case you were able to assist.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Benea
I would appreciate it if you could have a look at
Talk:Type_45_destroyer#HMS_Daring. Your opinion would carry a lot of weight with me, so if I'm getting it wrong, it would be a great way to find out. I'm driven by a keenness to ensure Wikipedia doesn't tell the world Daring is ready for service when there is still (disappointingly) a long way to go, and to ensure that the truth (where verifiable) is told. Yours, as always, in debt.
Shem (
talk)
14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree. Simply being commissioned does NOT mean that a ship is actually in service. And of course a ship is likely to be recommissioned on several occasions during its life. Rif Winfield ( talk) 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ben.
Could you kindly put in a disambiguation page for
French ship Impérial for me? The name only appears without any suffixed date (in a reference under
French ship Vengeur, to which reference the date 1805 needs attaching (the Vengeur of 1803 being renamed Impérial in 1805. I have put in an article separately for the Impérial of 1811 (later Royal Louis). There was also a flûte of 1794 bearing this name.
I am continuing (as and when time allows) to update the article on
List of ships of the line of France, to which additional 17th century (and early 18th) names still need attaching.
Rif Winfield (
talk)
18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ben. I have added some details of the 1794 ship. Incidentally, I am adding to List of French sail frigates as well as List of ships of the line of France; I don't think we have any structure yet for small French sailing warships. Rif Winfield ( talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Benea and BarretBonden,
Sorry for the recent edits on my talk page which is on your watchlist. I have been retrieving all of my discussions since I joined Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree that some are very interesting!!!
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 10th August 2009.
P. S. I copied this here incase you haven't got it on your watchlist anymore.
WP:DYK 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:DYK 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, I have done some work on the above two, with Rif Winfield providing me some good info on Calcutta. If you get a chance and have the time, could you look the two over and see if there is anything that I have missed, other than a shipbox on Armide, which I will leave to others to provide. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea: While working on something else, I came across the Minerva, and found that she was not listed in the HMS Minerva dab page. Phillips also doesn't seem to list her. Any idea why? Am I missing something? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
NW ( Talk) 05:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 30th August 2009.
Conversation:
Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 29th August 2009.
Let us start with the first paragraph:
See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply:
The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.
The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.
I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.
Et cetera.
Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!
I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.
With compliments.
DAFMM ( talk), 30th August 2009.
Hi Benea, could I just remind you to please use the {{newDYKnom}} template when adding your articles to DYK suggestions? Otherwise, people end up having to fix things manually, like this. Regards, Gatoclass ( talk) 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Why has this article been nominated for deletion?? Tlb1000 ( talk) 11:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Also I would like to upload an image (album artwork) but cannot do this Tlb1000 ( talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to advise you that I have now created "Class" articles for the majority of the post ships of 1770-1810, i.e. for Sphinx Class post ship, Porcupine Class post ship, Banterer Class post ship, Laurel Class post ship, Cyrus Class post ship and Conway Class post ship. I have also adjusted the references in individual ship articles for each ship of these classes (where that ship article already exists) so that all links now work. Note that most of these individual ship articles still await writing. I still have to act similarly in respect of the four Hermes Class post ships of 1810, and of the pre-1770 post ships. It might also be worthwhile mentioning (apologies if you're already aware of this) that when time permits I try to amend the individual ship dimensions to give the actual (as measured upon delivery to the Navy) dimensions and tonnage of every vessel, since most writers tend to quote only the designed dimensions and tonnages. This is perfectly understandable, as (for example) my colleague David Lyon, in his Sailing Navy List, was quoting the details from the class plans. In fact, all wooden ships - unlike metal ones - tended to differ slightly from their designed dimensions. Usually this was only a matter of a few inches or even a fraction of an inch, but it did effect the figures used in the calculation of a ship's tonnage. Rif Winfield ( talk) 11:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, just mentioning that I have created (Curieux) or added to (Pomone) these two articles. Both lack infoboxes, and need a second eye. Any help would be most kind. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea, Lovely work re the Rock, Maurice, and the Battle. Do you have any info re the sloop(s) HMS Fort Diamond that acted as tender to the Rock? Phillips had a little, but there was nothing in Winfield so what you see is all I found. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Benea. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype ( talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal Avast, landlubber! ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
≈ Chamal Avast, landlubber! ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reverts to Japanese food ship Mamiya. Bladeofgrass ( talk) 22:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 04:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
— Jake Wartenberg 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you've been brushing up the Hunt-class destroyer articles ( HMS Blackmore, Avon Vale, Bicester) - I appreciate it, thank you! ReuV talk 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
for finding those infobox error - and even working out where I cut and pasted from! Victuallers ( talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (talk • contribs) 04:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |