User talk:Corneredmouse

You can move the page using the tab at the top of the article (you'll see it between the 'history' and 'watch' buttons. Then you can select the new title you want to move it to. I'm happy to move it for you, let me know if that's what you want. As to your sources, I'm sure they are accurate, but what you have to be very careful not to do is introduce your own inferences. For example I agree that it is quite likely that Perkins and Nelson met if indeed they were on Bristol at the same time. But the fact is unless you have a source that says pretty much exactly that, we can't add our own suppositions on the matter. Similarly the claim that Nelson and Collingwood would have envied Perkin's autonomy. Again, quite likely, but in the absence of a source, this cannot be stated. (see |No original research policy for more on this.) Addressing things like this will help improve the article considerably. Let me know if you have further queries. Best, Benea (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can give it a few goes over to catch the minor issues like formatting, and prose presentation. If what you say is true, this could be a problem. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original research or our own synthesis of other sources like this. We have to be very strict about only including what can be sourced, and removing personal opinions, and our own commentary on things. We have to let the reader decide, rather than putting our own spin on things. As a guide have a look at other similar articles to see how they present information. From the looks of things Perkins will need to undergo some pretty heavy editing. Up to you how you want to proceed. Age of Nelson isn't my website, though it's a detailed and useful starting point for research. Best, Benea (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd be happy to. Good luck with it, Perkins seems a very interesting character. Perhaps he was cursed to live in a time with so much competition though, with the likes of Nelson, Hoste, Cochrane, and many others. Let me know if I can be of help in any way. Best, Benea (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, the article is looking in good shape. You could start with listings in the London Gazette. They're available online, and many despatches and reports detailing prizes were reprinted there. I can't recall off the top of my head whether they include the value of the prizes, but it might be a good place to start. Other than that the Admiralty records should provide details, but I don't recall ever seeing a definitive list. Benea (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further data on my usertalk: page, courtesy of David Hepper. Rif Winfield (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the article is much appreciated, thank you very much. Hopefully one day it will get feature article status. HJKeats (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information that you added is very thorough, however you need to prove WP:Verifiability through in-line citations or that edit is completely useless for the project Sadads (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought, I noticed that you have used mostly primary sources in you work. Unfortunately on Wikipedia that can only take you so far, secondary sources are golden, especially in the inline citations. Sadads (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, page notes, ex. "Tucker, 14", in the footnotes and then move the full citation to the Major Sources section, that way you don't make the footnotes too busy. Sadads (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better, keep it up and I think we should nominate the article for GA Review. I will read over it after you have done most of your edits, and clean up anything else I think may need work. Just let me know here or on my talk page. Sadads (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made one more comment at the same spot. Sadads (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

once more. Sadads (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dtgriffith said that he will start going through the article soon, I will also put my own review at the top of the list as well. Sadads (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I have not spend much time looking over the article, I would suggest either requesting a peer review from WPMILHIST or putting the article up for a GA nomination, currently I am busy doing many other things, Thanks, Sadads (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest doing a GA review first, then WPMILHIST A-class then FA. You can go up for GA review at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, Sadads (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		for your considerable expansion and sourcing at John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent, taking it from barely above a stub[1] to a well-fleshed out B-class article[2] that could easily be a WP:GA contender. Great work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beatson
James
At 12 mr byng was shot
Clowes
NAM Rodger
Winfield

Nice work on what you have done, a great contribution to wiki British naval and military projects Bruichladdich1 talk, 13:58, 04 August 2010 (GMT)

I would suggest moving the following sections to user WP:Subpages:

• User_talk:Corneredmouse#Royal_Navy_Fleet_present_at_the_Battle_of_Louisburg
• User_talk:Corneredmouse#Edward Boscawen
• User_talk:Corneredmouse#Fleets at the Battle of the Saintes

The talk page is for communications mostly, while the rest of your user space can be used as a big desk where you develop articles, keep reference materials etc. Sadads (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a sandbox by creating the page User:Corneredmouse/Sandbox or you can title the subpage any way you want such as User:Corneredmous/Royal Navy Fleet present at the Battle of Louisburg. Just put a slash after your user name and you can create as many subpages as you want. Sadads (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to keep multiple projects on the same sandbox, might want to spread them out that way they are easier to work with and you can use the Move page function later. Sadads (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I didn't remove the section, just the title. Anyway, no harm. It was not an error, just my format like: so no edit war upcoming. I seem I surfed on that article trying to disambugate Albano. Do you have any idea of which one (usually it's Albano Laziale near Rome) it's referring to? Let me know and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As for Albano, I was wrong... it's my memory, dont' worry. Ciao!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to drop in and say what a great job you've done on the John Jervis article. I see you have picked up a barnstar for it already and deservedly so. I first looked at the article back in July when I was doing some work on Thomas Masterman Hardy and I made a mental note to come back to it, but now it's GA I don't have much to add. However, if you have anything to add to this article that would be appreciated too. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also visit Talk: Thomas Bladen Capel and give your opinion.--Ykraps (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do recognize that MPs prior to the Reform Act were often "elected" only by the local nobility thus ensuring what was often essentially dynastic control over one or more seats, I also am of the belief that this doesn't retract from the fact that they were indeed MPs. Furthermore I've always been of the opinion that Officeholder infoboxes are a bit less aesthetically offensive than military person infoboxes. That said there are admittedly matters of opinion and if you are dead set on restoring the military person infobox to [{William Cornwallis]] I certainly wouldn't protest. Best wishes! (-- Aricci526 13:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello again. Thanks for your work on Thomas Bladen Capel but I fear you have made typing error. Do want to take a look at the 1812 section here. I would've corrected it myself but I'm not sure what you were trying to say.--Ykraps (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, it's an easy thing to do. Oh, and thanks for your work on 'Atkinson' too.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've had a bit of crack at the article's Sir John Orde, 1st Baronet and James Saumarez, 1st Baron de Saumarez, if you fancy it, you could run your eye over them too. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been waiting patiently for someone to review John Scott (naval officer) but to no avail. Perhaps you could run your eye over it and remove the 'new unreviewed article tag'? Although it hasn't been there as long, you might like to do the same for John Weatherhead (naval officer). No rush though, if you're busy. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This note is to Acad Ronin, Corneredmouse and Shem(1805) I have started a page on the first HDMS Lougen on my Userpage. There are huge gaps still to be filled, but you may like to help fill them in! the Danes claim this was the first copper-clad ship - is this true, or just the first danish copper-clad ship? Viking1808 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

How quick was that then!! you picked up on HDMS Lougen (1791) before I had a chance to get to your talk page! I am currently working on a translation from Danish Wiki about Captain Jessen - your Mr Perkins' opponent at the Battle of West Key - although he is not so colourful as your Perkins. (I have sent the Perkins link to a friend in Canada who writes Admiral Parker/Carribean fiction). Yes, I am very happy with the way the HMS Arab action is now presented - Thank you.Viking1808 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM considering your focus on Napoleonic British Naval captains, Sadads (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) No problem, Sadads (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corneredmouse, thanks for signing up! Great to hear you're so close to the NMM - it takes me about an hour to get there... hopefully the Warship Histories project will be the first of many productive collaborations between Wikipedia and the NMM. The Land (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo, I tried to add a section about this on the Battle of Trafalgar page but was outvoted. I remember seeing a programme on the BBC (I think) saying that a quarter of the British sailors at Trafalgar were black (freed slaves) but I could not find a link to this effect. SmokeyTheCat 13:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of forgotten Black history did you know that some 20,000 black men fought for the British is the US War of Independence? Some 7,000 of these ended up free in Britain after the war was lost. Imagine, 7,000 black men in Britain in 1780 or so. I don't have a source but I am sure that this is true. I'd like to see this little known fact in Wiki somewhere but I am too lazy to do the research. I thought it might interest you. SmokeyTheCat 07:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir. Thank you for asking me first. Naval blockades are just "blockades" and cannot be described as "battles", because they're not. This article refers to the assault on the city by Nelson's amphibious forces. After having failed to bombard the town, Nelson was dispatched on the even more disatrous Santa Cruz expedition, later in the month. The blockade effectively went on, but St. Vincent withdrew the main fleet to the Tagus in the atumn, keeping a squadron of observation cruising off Cadiz during the winter...

The name "Assault on Cadiz" instead "Blockade of Cadiz" gives this engagement a more accurate and specific name, because a maritime blockade is not a sea battle. Another article could be "the blockade of cadiz!", where you could write every feat of arms that occurred from 1797 until 1798-1802, but as the blockade of cadiz is not a "campaign", it has no sense to even think about it.

Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which you expressed interest in earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]