User talk:Navops47/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Counsel to the Navy Department, Ministry of Defence) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Counsel to the Navy Department, Ministry of Defence.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

A well-constructed article!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thank you.--Navops47 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Navops47: my pleasure, why don't you apply for being autopatrolled, WP:AUTOPAT? Britishfinance (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Solicitor to the Admiralty) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Solicitor to the Admiralty.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Well written article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Port Mahon Dockyard) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Port Mahon Dockyard.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

(another) well written article

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thank you.--Navops47 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Paymaster of the Marines (Navy Board)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Paymaster of the Marines (Navy Board).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good article; would be great if it linked to another WP article of an office holder, however that may not be possible. well done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thanks and noted.--Navops47 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Ticket Office (Navy Office)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ticket Office (Navy Office).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

(another) good article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thank you again.--Navops47 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Capability)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Capability).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good article. thanks

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thank you again.--Navops47 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Chief of Staff Navy Command (HQ)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Chief of Staff Navy Command (HQ).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Very nice series you are creating here. Well done.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thank you.--Navops47 (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Directorate of Naval Tactical and Weapons Policy) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Directorate of Naval Tactical and Weapons Policy.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Not sure the right structure for naming these articles in the {{short dec}}; you should amend as needed. thanks

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Noted and have amended thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Balchen promotion

Your edit summary was "cite"...but you didn't provide a Gazette or other citation for John Balchen getting a promotion directly from Vice Admiral of the Red. Do you have one?LE (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC) The Threedecks page cites CSORN but attempting to check that out takes one to the Ancestry.com main page.LE (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Found the Gazette and added that cite...but the date of the Gazette itself is actually before the contained date for the promotions.LE (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I provided a web citation source by Simon Harrison at threedecks.org which has also been additionally cited in that list by someone else. Also yes ancestry.com is a paid subscription website which I have access to but so is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ://www.oxforddnb.com/ which is used extensively in naval articles citations I've come across on WP.--Navops47 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hence my preference for Archive.org or Wikisource links to the public domain original DNB rather than the copyrighted OXFORD DNB where practical...LE (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vice Admirals of the Red then & Commodores Now

The boilerplate sentence about how current flag officers are generically all termed admirals should only appear when it is relevant; in an article whose specific subject is a rank that only existed when commodores were NOT generically termed admirals it is NOT relevant or needs to have commodores deleted from it...there is no reason to mention them unless it is to explain that in the days of VARs they were NOT considered admirals. But now you have that sentence in there twice. LE (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vice-Admiral of England

Now I'm baffled. Your revised list of Vice-admirals of England is totally at odds with the list on the Admiralty in the 16th century page. Do we need both? Plucas58 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello I have amended the list now match Blomfields 1912 list which is supported by this list W. G. Perrin (1928) The VICE-ADMIRAL and REAR-ADMIRAL of the UNITED KINGDOM, The Mariner's Mirror, 14:1, 26-31, DOI: 10.1080/00253359.1928.10655449 both of these sources state that the office of Lieutenant of the Admiralty dates from the 14th century but there are no conclusive list of office holders and the early history is very obscure. Reviewing the previous list Sir Thomas Wyndham of the two sources provided the first states VADM to Henry VIII the second says Deputy Lieutenant and Vice Admiral to the High Admiral I assumed that would mean VADM England this is incorrect. Blomfield mentions Sir Francis Drake in his article as VADM to Elizabeth I but was not appointed VADM England. Looking at the second source from Brewer I misinterpreted this also as meaning the same thing Rodger, N.A.M. (1997). "Social History of Officers 1509-1603". The safeguard of the sea : a naval history of Britain. Vol 1., 660-1649. London, England: Penguin. p. 298 mentions that vice-admirals or flag officers were formally appointed by the crown as junior officers to the Lord Admiral of a particular fleet. Sir Thomas Spert was added from an older source (1839) though it states he was vadm of England again there is no conclusive date mentioned I now believe this could just means he was one of a group of English vice admirals appointed during this period. Nicholas Wadham was added as on his page it says he was Vice Admiral to Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey (1473–1554), High Admiral of England from 1521 to 1525 though that is not sourced looking at it again was appointed to the Lord Admiral as a VADM but not the title of VADM of England. Sir Robert Tyrwhitt was added as a web source the peerage.com however I re looked at the pages further source which is a book but no page number is given to support that he held that title. Sir Francis Bryan appointed a vice admiral in 1525, 1543 again I now believe as with all the remaining vice-admirals listed they were appointed as such to a particular Lord Admiral as a junior flag officer (which has therefore confused me) but were not clearly officially appointed the official title of Vice-Admiral of England.--Navops47 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)-

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Navops47, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Joe will have look good read of Wikipedia:Autopatrolled best regards.--Navops47 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Royal Navy OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

The lede has always specified the R.N. "of the United Kingdom" which implies a post-1707 scope as the UK (of GB, then of GB & I, then GB & NI) did not exist until --Navops47 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)1707. Until I started adding to it a couple of months ago the list included only post-Victorians. You are going to make me sorry I ever bothered.LE (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello you changed the scope of the original article, that had no dates nor any mention of Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Great Britain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and United Kingdom from November 2017 until January 2019 when you changed the scope of the article by adding the descriptor promoted to the rank of admiral, you then changed the scope of the article again in February 2019 by adding a political cut off date to the page to justify not working collaboratively with other editors and ignoring those editors suggestions that I were backed up with sources. Changing the scope of the article as you have done a number of times constitutes WP:Ownership of content hence why I said I would file a formal complaint about it I have in the meantime listed this at Talk:List of Royal Navy admirals (1707-current)/Scope changes to this article to exclude consensus goes against WP:Ownership of content.--Navops47 (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You are the one refusing to respect the preferences of other editors. Refusing to allow the scope of the article to be limited harms its quality.LE (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have tried in vain to reach a compromise with you clearly listing my objections providing verifiable sources to the points I raised in TP discussions which you have continually ignored and you have not made any concessions at all which constitutes WP:Ownership of content and in tandem with other editor Takvaal constitutes Wikipedia:Ownership of content/Multiple-editor ownership when I have made changes you have both reverted me and removed the sources I had given and posting similar statements in your edit summaries. In addition the opening statement on that page an in particular the section Wikipedia:Ownership of content/Examples of ownership behaviour. Your responses to at least a few of these are self evident in your comments to me on the article talk page and finally because I am not going round in circles with you anymore please remember.--Navops47 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.--Navops47 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Victualling Commissioners' flag

Hello - I much appreciate much of your work on RN and related subjects. Could I, though, plead for an improvement to the 'flag of the Victualling Office' you created here: Commons:Flag of the Victualling Office Royal Navy 1832.png? The Victualling Office had a distinctive and widely-employed emblem of crossed fouled anchors (their cables intertwined to form an unusual pattern). Your simplified imaged omits the cables, making the flag more a sort of generic nautical symbol. The source for the image which you cite is unfortunately corrupted, but if you look closely the entwined cables are indeed visible - as they are, clearly, in the 1848 edition of the same book ([1]) as well as carved in stone and otherwise reproduced at almost all the historic old Victualling Yards. It probably seems like the height of pedantry to raise this, but if there have to be flags for every Naval article we had better get them right - I happen to think that the Victualling Office was a rather remarkable organisation and its memory deserves to be correctly badged.Barabbas1312 (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Barabbas apologies for the very late reply have been on a personal sabbatical and in view of your comments until we get a more accurate image I have no objection to it being removed for now.--Navops47 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Navy of Oman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commander-in-Chief, North Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

In editing World Darts Federation, I looked for a citation to add to the definition of WDF Rankings which you added with this edit. After some searching of dartswdf.com, I've not been able to find it in the constitution, playing and tournament rules, world ranking systems criteria, or a general search of the site ([2], [3]). Perhaps I simply overlooked it. Where did you find this definition? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello please forgive me but that edit was three years ago, however the allocation of ranking points has since changed slightly from what I remember reading and they have altered the wording differently, but it can be found here: https://www.dartswdf.com/calendar/wdf-tournament-categories-points-allocations/ .--Navops47 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
You don't remember the exact source you used three years ago? :-) I thought it might've been a book or other offline reference. I don't see it at the link you suggested, though World Ranking Systems Criteria for seniors mentions the one-year period ("The WDF World Ranking Tables will be 'rolling tables' ... Points obtained in a particular event will remain valid until that particular event is played the following year."). I'd like to find a source for the first half of the paragraph as well, if you have any suggestions for that. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Commander-in-Chief, Devonport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lord John Hay
Resident Commissioner, Portsmouth Dockyard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Navy Office

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Navops47 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Use correct titles, please

Honestly I am getting somewhat fed up with your incorrect transcription of Royal Navy terminology. The UK Maritime Component Command is just that - the United Kingdom Maritime Component Command - not, repeat, not the "United Kingdom Maritime Component Command, Persian Gulf". You appear to have incorrectly copied that title out of Gulabin's site. You will notice that the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES on the subject use the UKMCC title without any Persian Gulf suffix - see reference 3 in the article, and in any case, the UK is solidly aligned with the Arabian GCC states and would not wish to use the term "Persian Gulf" now, as it would reinforce revolutionary Iran's claim to things!! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted and you need to calm down, I assumed that as Colin Mackie is compiling lists that are being made into official UK government directories as evident in him being presented by Sir Simon Fraser, Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs giving him a produced directory based on his British Diplomats lists see the photo on his website, he must be using the correct titles and therefore reliable? Obviously you appear to know better?--Navops47 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Arguments from authority are not endorsed in any Wikipedia discussions; just because he's well regarded doesn't make him infallible. More important people get the chance to make more important mistakes; Churchill and the Dardanelles comes to mind. Colin Mackie is doing an enormous amount of work - great work, generally, of a scale somewhat comparable to the Military Balance - and a number of times he's made clarifying additions which in this case just make the title incorrect. Yes, I have cited Royal Navy online sources, yes, never in my trawls across the web have I seen any terminology but UKMCC, yes, I believe I know better. Please, double check the specific title for any particular RN officer with another source but Mackie; what he does is amalgamate several changes of title into one post, and a number of modern titles have thus been a bit conflated. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Bombay Dockyard

Would you please, kindly, explain why you have just created a new content fork of Bombay Dockyard at Bombay Dockyard (Royal Navy)? The Bombay Dockyard page is barely 9k, while the new article is about 10kB. WP:SIZERULE indicates the first time we need to consider splitting pages is at about 40kB. You've just created a double page on essentially the same subject - a time period that was already covered at the original page and just needs expansion, not content forking!! Please WP:MERGE the two pages on the same subject. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect use of categories

I've just had to roll back this edit in which you placed Second Fleet (United Kingdom) in the overall Category:Royal Navy when it was already in the correct category, many layers down the hierarchy, Category:Fleets of the Royal Navy. I also had to remove Category:Admiralty during World War I when the Fleet was not part of the Admiralty-as-naval ministry, but already in a WW I formations category (Category:Military units and formations of the Royal Navy in World War I, a subcategory of Category:Royal Navy in World War I). Would you please pay more attention to the guidelines at WP:Categories, kindly, so that people don't have to go around after you and fix them. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted.--Navops47 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT

By this edit I have just removed the single article from the category which you created, Category:Royal Navy militias. Your drive to categorize everything strictly by the exact terminology of the article is going beyond our categorization guidelines. WP:Categories says that generally categories should have at least 20 members, and so Sea Fencibles can quite happily go in the higher category Category:Military units and formations of the Royal Navy. Also, to avoid the suggestion that there were things called 'Royal Navy militias' cat guidelines specify that such categories should be named X of Y - eg 'Militias of the Royal Navy'. Be more careful in future, please!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Noted will keep trying not to p..... you off.--Navops47 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Royal Navy militias

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No objection go ahead.--Navops47 (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Western Task Force

Would you kindly like to explain this edit? The Western Task Force was the *only* task force of the three task forces involved in Operation Torch that was comprised totally of United States, rather than UK-including-Royal Navy, forces. Why did you add a Royal Navy category? Honestly, Competence is Required to edit on this site.. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Royal Navy maritime forces

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

No objection go ahead.--Navops47 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct referencing

How on earth did you come to make this edit? What you've described as 'Historical Research Article 83' is actually an article in the journal Historical Research, Vol 83, No 221, August 2010. It is, yes, a Third party source, but the completely confused way you've included it at the end makes it look like some sort of standalone internet page. Please reread WP:CITEHOW. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The way you've started the article, clearly with long slabs copied from User:Simon Harley's site, also leaves out what others have marked as a missing link - what were the Port Guard ships and their significance? Where did they come from? Please link all the relevant threads when you're writing. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello you originally added that content and that citation back on 14 November 2009 see Line 26 here it was missing from the sources section at the end so the edit i made the one you kindly (linked above) was to add your citation to the sources section as you had written it and fill in the missing pieces you left out of your reference. In fact the correct citation should have used is cite journal in your original citation there is no mention of Vol 83, No. 221 (Look at it) which you have now revealed 10 years later so please make sure you cite correctly in future before blaming other people for your own mistakes have a lovely day.--Navops47 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Having now found your source https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2281.2008.00484.x I believe had you used cite journal correctly your citation should have looked like this. Seligmann, Matthew S. (2010). "A prelude to the reforms of Admiral Sir John Fisher: the creation of the Home Fleet, 1902–3". Historical Research. 83 (221): 506–519. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2281.2008.00484.x. ISSN 1468-2281. And not this: Matthew S. Seligmann, A prelude to the reforms of Admiral Sir John Fisher: the creation of the Home Fleet, 1902–3, Historical Research, 2009.--Navops47 (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Please reread WP:CITEHOW.--Navops47 (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Yes, in 2009, I added an incomplete reference. We're ten years on and standards have gotten significantly higher. I also created two featured articles in 2006-7ish, and now both have been delisted; they're not good enough anymore!! When I left 'Historical Research' in as the journal title in 2009, I did not expect someone to change it to 'Historical Research *Article* 83', rather than Volume 83. We all have to do better, and part of that is adding full journal citations with volume numbers and issue numbers. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Admiral Somerville moved his flag; he did not come under a Rear Admiral

I continue to be annoyed and concerned by the factual inaccuracies you manage to impart on this site. By this edit you manage to claim that Admiral James Somerville ceded the command of the entire Eastern Fleet to the rear-admiral in East Africa!! Our article on Somerville is quite correct and says, in point of fact, that Somerville shifted his flag to Kilindini. Flag Officer East Africa, in all probability, probably came under Somerville's command, rather than the other way around. Honestly, when a fleet needs to fall back, the commander goes with it; Admiral Somerville didn't disappear into thin air!! Please be more careful in future ; WP:CIR!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

*Not* 'geographical areas'!! - military formations with commanders

I continue to be amazed that you come up with these contortions about 'geographical area of admiralty jurisdiction'[4] - this is a military organization!! It has a chain of command, running in the RN's case from the First Sea Lord, to subordinate commanders and commands, such as Commander-in-Chief, Devonport, running what is generally informally known as the station or the command etc. They are military formations!! not 'geographical areas' or anything particularly related to admiralty law. A military organisation has a number of subdivisions all reporting to a commander, or a chief-of-staff in the case of a British armed service. All these admirals/organisation we may fight over the names of are commanders and military formations; they cannot be areas of the globe divorced from the command chain. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A number of book source quotes for you to read 'the Royal Navy (RN) enjoyed a near global presence, with the British maritime empire subdivided into a number of geographically defined Stations. These included the Home, Mediterranean, North American and West Indies, South East Coast of America, Pacific, China, East Indies, Australia, and West Coast of Africa and Cape of Good Hope Stations' Source:SN 7390 - Disease in the Royal Navy during the Nineteenth Century, 1856-1898. https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/. University of Essex, University of Manchester and Jisc. p2. Another source: 'The other way in which the work of yards abroad differed from those at home was the extent of the geographical area the station covered'. The British Navy's Victualling Board, 1793-1815: Management Competence and Incompetence, Janet W. Macdonald, Boydell & Brewer, 2010. p.67. Another source: 'What made British sea power great and secured its Empire was not that it had ships and warships on every ocean all seas of the world. It had a number of geo-strategic naval stations which based squadrons that had aspects of fleets in being. A maritime nations command of the sea is limited to its geographical area of control for the protection of sea routes'. Sir William Rooke Creswell and the Foundation of the Australian Navy. Sheila Dwyer. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Mar 26, 2014.p.2. Another source: 'The Royal Navy was organised into a series of squadrons each assigned to a geographic area or station of concern to Britain e.g. Mediterranean Station, the North America Station. At Sea With the Scientifics: The Challenger Letters of Joseph Matkin. Joseph Matkin. University of Hawaii Press, 1992. p. 384. That was just a random sample of book sources no mention of the word FORMATION in relation to the explanations given above to the word Station. The formation was the name of the squadron or other forces allocated to that geographical area or station they are two separate things and going and back through the histories of a lot of the these stations that were originally created as e.g. Africa Station you have changed them from station (the geographical area of control) to an appointment by patent to an officer to command that area, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific. and additionally it also seems that for a number of years you have been quite happy to leave them as stations without redirecting the pages to become a page about a RN appointment until recently. As I left a message on your page before leave the stations as they are (a geographical area of control) and separate out the appointments into two separate articles. Wish you happy a day and all the very best for the festive season.--Navops47 (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I am aware generally of all the types of sources you cite, and more (I can find lots of citations myself, you don't actually need to quote them to me, eg German East Asian Squadron as a formation [5]), but you seem to continue to miss the point.
Let's focus this discussion. The geographical area would have no RN significance without the commander and RN personnel, ships, and ancillary equipment. That second part of the sentence meets the definition of a military formation: - Shorter Oxford English Dictionary - "a formal arrangement of persons or things (ships, aircraft, etc.), acting together as a unit" (SOED, 6th Ed., 2007, p.1022). No, there are not necessarily mentions of the specific word 'formation' in the particular sources you've cited, but 'command' and 'station' both meet the definition of a formation, and my preference, emphasizing the commander, incorporates the 'persons or things' part of the definition.
There can be military/naval formations with or without specific geographical areas of responsibility (Flag Officer Naval Reserves, a functional post), but I would ask you again - stop emphasizing the geographical area without the Navy things in it. The Navy persons or things, to use the dictionary definition, are the important thing, not a freestanding geographical area. A station or commander-in-chief simply doesn't exist without Navy persons or things in it - eg Sturdee's battlecruiser-led force was created as a new post/station of C-in-C SA&P, suddenly, because of Spee's threat. It did not exist beforehand.
I will continue to remove wordings that imply a freestanding geographical area attached to nothing, and I hope I have made my point clear (whether we disagree or not as to whether the command/station/post or the admiral-in-command should be the article title). Merry Christmas. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)