User talk:Ykraps/Archive 5

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ykraps. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Latona (1781)

The article HMS Latona (1781) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Latona (1781) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Latona (1781)

On 18 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Latona (1781), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the frigate HMS Latona rescued the ship-of-the-line HMS Bellerophon on the Glorious First of June? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Latona (1781). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Latona (1781)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

M3 Half-track GA issues

Hi, I'm currently interested in improving the M3 Half-track article, and I noticed that you reviewed the most recent GA nomination, and made a very large and detailed list of issues it had. I was wondering if you feel any of the issues in the list have been resolved, and perhaps if any new issues have appeared. Thanks! WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@WelpThatWorked: I have a few work commitments at the moment but I will certainly have another look at the article over the next few days. Where would be the best place to put any comments?--Ykraps (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Ykraps, Thank you. I think the GA review page itself should be good, so others can find it if needed. Have a nice day! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@WelpThatWorked: I think that is closed and archived, and I don't think reopening it is usual practice. Have you thought about opening a WP:Peer review (which will also be linked to the talk page)? A peer review is a useful lever at WP:GAN because it shows you have been serious about improving the article. In addition you may attract comments from other editors.--Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ykraps, Thanks for the suggestion, I've never opened a Peer review before, and I wasn't sure what situations warranted it. I opened one up. WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ship Courageux (1753)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article French ship Courageux (1753) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of French ship Courageux (1753)

The article French ship Courageux (1753) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:French ship Courageux (1753) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for French ship Courageux (1753)

On 14 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article French ship Courageux (1753), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/French ship Courageux (1753). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, French ship Courageux (1753)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

HMS Latona (1781)

You deleted my image of the sunken 'Hollandia', 64 guns, with HMS 'Latona', 38 guns, standing by the wreck; at Dogger Bank; a detail taken from the Portrait of Vice-Admiral Sir Hyde Parker. So your saying the incident in the portrait never happened?, and yet the National Maritime Museum doesn't confirm that to be the case. see https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/14404.html Broichmore (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid it didn't. Not in the way depicted in the painting at any rate. The Hollandia sunk the following day or later that night, (depending on sources) after the fleets had parted, and there is nothing to say she was even engaged by Latona. He who pays the piper calls the tune and it was quite common for those commissioning works to exaggerate or even fabricate events. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature states that, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative". The event depicted in the image isn't mentioned in the text, for reasons already given, and so I can't see how the image is pertinent. It's a shame because images of Latona are rare and I congratulate you on finding it but I don' think we can use it, sorry. --Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I take on board what you say. The only actual claim here is at some point the Latona witnessed the wreck, that could have been weeks or months after the battle. Would it help to crop the Hollandia out of the image? Do we at least have (if separated) two legitimate images, the Latona on one hand and the wreck on the other? Broichmore (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Latona was anywhere near the Hollandia at anytime. I think the only British ship to see her was the Belle Poule (although I could be wrong there). Yes, cropping the image as you suggest would give us two good images. We could then use the Latona image, with a suitable caption, in the infobox.--Ykraps (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've cropped them, but I fear I'll have to go over to Greenwich to snap better. -Broichmore (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean but have added it to the article nevertheless. The fuzziness may well be down to the artist so taking another shot of it may make no difference. Having said that though, if you ever happen to be nearby, with a camera, then that would be appreciated. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Roebuck (1774)

The article HMS Roebuck (1774) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:HMS Roebuck (1774) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Imperieuse (1805)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Lavinia

On 17 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Lavinia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Lavinia was saved from being broken up, only to be sunk in a collision with another ship? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Lavinia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Scaling images in the infobox

I currently have the article HMS Roebuck (1774) at FAC here,[[1]] where I've been asked not to use fixed px sizes for the images.

By inserting the upright scaling parameter, I've overcome the problem in the article here,[[2]] and even in the table here[[3]] but I cannot work out what I have to do to the image in the infobox. I have been experimenting with this template[[4]] but there must be something I'm not understanding because, despite multiple attempts, I'm not getting the results I want.

Is it possible, as a one off, for someone to do the hard work for me? I could then check out the diffs and work out what I need to do next time (hopefully). Many thanks. Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not hard work, as you can see. Infoboxes are fairly smart about images, so you just have to point them to the image name and the code will figure out the rest. You need a pretty special reason to try to force the result to be different. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: Then I'd completely misunderstood what was required. Thanks for your help and prompt response.--Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I had never heard of a Dobos Torte before so I had the added pleasure of learning about it from our article. Two treats in one!--Ykraps (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Imperial Triple Crown

I'm very pleased to present the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels to Ykraps, for your work on "Did you know?" and the good and featured article processes! — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Congrats on the Imperial Triple Crown! You might be interested in a userbox I made, {{User crown|Imperial}}:

This user has been awarded an Imperial Triple Crown.

— Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and the infobox is cool too.--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on HMS Roebuck (1774). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations on your second Four Award and thank you for the excellent work you are doing in this often neglected area. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hiram M. Chittenden

Ykraps, just a reminder that for this review to be completed, it needs to include a sig. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Sotheby (Royal Navy officer)

On 23 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Sotheby (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that following an injustice suffered by the British consul, Charles Sotheby trained his frigate's guns on the Bey of Rhodes' house and opened fire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Sotheby (Royal Navy officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Sotheby (Royal Navy officer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

@Peacemaker67 Thamks for the appreciation and all the reviews you do for the project.--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries. It all helps. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 5 October 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Melpomene (1794)

On 30 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Melpomene (1794), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Melpomene missed the Battle of Trafalgar, but arrived in time to tow away damaged enemy vessels? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Melpomene (1794). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Melpomene (1794)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hello User:Ykraps,

Please stop edit warring over the French campaign in Egypt and Syria articles. If you wish to improve the pages, by all means please feel free to do so, however edit warring is unconstructive and pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.64.26 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, please don't change date formats in articles. I will notify you when I have completed a report to WP:ANI. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what your point of contention is. All date formats have been reverted. Also, don't notify me about whatever you plan to do, as I don't care- if you can't provide a good reason for edit warring that isn't my issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.64.26 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Gordon Falcon (Royal Navy officer)

On 14 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gordon Falcon (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gordon Falcon was one of the British officers who boarded the USS Chesapeake (depicted) to search for Royal Navy deserters during the Chesapeake–Leopard affair? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gordon Falcon (Royal Navy officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gordon Falcon (Royal Navy officer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on Sulphur Crisis of 1840. I'm an American, and it's hard for me to use BrEng, no matter how much I try Eddie891 Talk Work 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeh, I don't always get it right when it's the other way round![[5]] Thanks very much for the barnstar and thanks for creating an article about a bit of British history I knew nothing about.--Ykraps (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for John Peyton (Royal Navy officer)

On 13 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Peyton (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a letter written by John Peyton to his wife contains one of the few surviving first-hand accounts of the Battle of the Nile? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Peyton (Royal Navy officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Peyton (Royal Navy officer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Leeds Civic Trust

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to replace information from Infobox with link to relevant section

Hi Ykraps - I am advising I have started a vote on your initial suggestion to remove all the guff from the infobox and replace with a link to the relevant section. Just thought I would let you know: Talk:War_of_1812#Edit_Break_-_Vote_on_Peacemaker67's_proposal Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Brodie (Royal Navy officer)

On 28 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Brodie (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Brodie may have been in command of HMS Arrow at the 1801 Battle of Copenhagen, not William Bolton as often recorded? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Brodie (Royal Navy officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Brodie (Royal Navy officer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for William Birchall

On 30 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Birchall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Birchall may have impressed one of the local militia, but the rest were most unimpressed? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Birchall), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Final discussion of Peacemakers proposed changes to the Infobox - war of 1812

Hi Ykraps - as you were I think the original person who suggested it, I just thought I would give you a heads up - I'm about to make this change to the site, making Peacemaker's proposals as discussed on the talk page. Three people in support, one who is dissenting. There has been a lot of discussion, but its not really going anywhere, and it has been a month. Thanks for your contribution so far, its been a good addition to the discussion. Cheers - Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 some more

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theory/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 Infobox - Not following Wikipedia Policy

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

War of 1812 - Infobox - Dispute Resolution

This is a notification that you have been listed as an editor involved in the discussion about the war of 1812 Infobox Results section. The discussion has been listed on the disputes resolution noticeboard, for a third party to provide input. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RS Noticeboard about Latimer

Discussion about Latimer as a source (as to whether he thinks the war of 1812 was a win or a draw) taking place here on the RS noticebaord - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Victory_in_War_of_1812 Looks pretty clear the editors are saying he says he thinks it was a British win, so no real need to commment, but Elinruby mentioned I should let you know as you were involved in the original disucssion. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between July and September 2020. Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Just doing my QPQ but the recognition is welcome so thank you.--Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for William Cuming (Royal Navy officer)

On 23 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William Cuming (Royal Navy officer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that William Cuming missed the Battle of Trafalgar because he had to take Robert Calder back to England for a court-martial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Cuming (Royal Navy officer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William Cuming (Royal Navy officer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Darnestown, Maryland

Thank you for looking at Darnestown, Maryland. It is great to have someone from a different background looking at the article. I will use all of your prose suggestions. My only worry is if your changes make the wording too much like that of a source document—don't want a copyright violation. TwoScars (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@TwoScars: Nice to hear from you. Yes, copyvio is a serious problem you need to keep in mind. Sometimes a copyedit from someone who doesn't have the sources can turn a piece of text back into an identical copy. I still have a bit more to add to the review which I hope you will find useful but thanks for your acknowledgement. Few people bother to respond which often leaves me wondering whether I'm wasting my time. Best of luck with your GAN when it comes to it and don't forget to link your peer review in the nomination as it shows you have been serious about improving the article. I would keep the peer review open for as long as possible in case anyone else chips in and also consider requesting a copyedit. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to look at Darnestown, Maryland. I believe Peer Reviewers are vastly under–appreciated. I will address every one of your comments before I put it up for Good Article. Any more thoughts on the lead? Like many American towns, Darnestown began "dying" when the railroad bypassed it. Its small revival has been caused by wealthy people purchasing the land. Hence, not much history in the 20th Century. Many of the "businesses" counted by the U.S. Census Bureau are simply people working/consulting from home. I'm also working on Battle of Droop Mountain and a major upgrade for Third Battle of Winchester (in my sandbox). I will switch over to Darnestown, and maybe it will be ready in a few months. BTW, excellent pictures on your homepage. My wife is a fan of the UK and its history. TwoScars (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the advent of the railways and the affect it had on Darnestown is worthy of inclusion in the lead. This is something you could delve more deeply into in the main body (sources permitting, of course). I assume the town's early industry (farming) got a big boost from the canal as it would have opened up a massive new market. It would also have brought new goods from other places, trade would've flourished and the population would've grown exponentially. The railways would have killed all that. It's the same story in the UK, the railways were faster and could transport larger loads; the canals couldn't compete and settlements along them died. You could also add Darnestown's role during the civil war. BTW, as you obviously have an interest in the American Civil War, you might want to contact Hog Farm, who is a fellow enthusiast and has an impressive amount of good and featured content to his credit. I will give some more thought to how you might better balance the lead and let you know if I come up with anything. Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've actually reviewed several GAs for TwoScars. Always interesting work and well-written. I've been meaning to get around to the Droop Mountain Peer review, but I've been rather busy the last several months and have had several ongoing projects using up a lot of my WP time (namely, WP:URFA/2020 and sorting through a couple thousand California geography stubs, about 45% of which are spurious and non-notable). Hopefully I'll be able to take a look at Droop Mountain soon. I don't remember much about Droop Mountain off the top of my head, except that I think it was in today's West Virginia and involved Alfred Jenkins's CSA cavalry, although I may be wrong on both. Missouri, Arkansas, and Kansas are more my speciality. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Hog Farm, I didn't mean that he should rope you in for a review, I was more thinking you might have information about Darnestown during the Civil War but I'm sure Two Scars would be delighted if you took a look at Droop Mountain too.--Ykraps (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I'll be able to get to the review any time soon. I've taken a look at a few books of mine to try to find Darnestown, and it appears that the Union VI Corps went through the area during the march to the Battle of Antietam. I can add that in or send a scan of the relevant two pages to TwoScars if they'd like. I might be able to turn up something further, but it's late enough where I am it'd have to be at a later date. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that would make an interesting addition. Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for John Devonshire

On 10 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Devonshire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Devonshire was supposed to stop USS President putting to sea but didn't? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Devonshire), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown

I'm very pleased to present the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown Jewels to Ykraps, for your work on "Did you know?" and the good and featured article processes! — Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown!

— Bilorv (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Four award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on HMS Pearl (1762). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ykraps (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The siege of Toulon

Y, please look at usage stats in books. By a very wide margin, siege is lowercase the context of "the siege of Toulon". That is, there's no evidence of it being treated as a proper name. Similarly with other sieges. If you agree, please fix at French fleet at the siege of Toulon. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering what you meant by "Sources use capitals." I just went through the cited sources; it's not easy to search some of them and find the phrase, but wherever I did find it, siege was lowercase. That and the broader book stats are at odds with your impression, so I wonder where that comes from. Dicklyon (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, The first two sources I looked at, Napoleon, Soldier of Destiny by Michael Broers and Admiral of the Blue by Iain Gordon, both capitalise Siege of Toulon. If Siege of Toulon is the name of the conflict, the rules of English dictate that it is capitalised. If that is not the name of the conflict, what is, and why are we not using that? My advice would be to open up a move discussion. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

At the Napoleon book, Amazon finds "Page 116 him since they first met at the siege of Toulon. In human terms i…" and no more uses in sentences (headings obviously don't count as they tend to be in heading case even if not proper names). I agree that Gordon caps it (in his preface); but he's unusual in that. In any case, if you think it needs a discussion, I'll ge to that soon. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had an opportunity to look at a few more sources and many do indeed use lowercase, including Noel Mostert's book, The Line Upon a Wind. However, we are talking about English usage here and I don't think that's Noel's area of expertise.--Ykraps (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As the stats show, it's overwhelmingly lowercase in English usage. Even in one of the books that you said caps it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am still not convinced and have left a comment at Talk:French fleet at the Siege of Toulon. Thanks for opening the discussion.--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Fancourt

On 9 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Robert Fancourt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Robert Fancourt lost his ship to mutineers in 1797, then ran it aground in 1801? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Fancourt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Robert Fancourt), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Cuban flag in Trafalgar Combined Fleet order of battle?

Hi! I have a question and found your name prominently in the edit history for Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar. I am not even sure whether it is good form to bother someone out of the blue, but here's hoping you can help me!

The article Order of battle at the Battle of Trafalgar lists several Spanish ships as Cuban-built, judging from the displayed flag. I am by no means an expert on the Napoleonic Wars, but I am reasonably certain that the current Cuban flag is not and has never been a flag of Spain, her navy, or any of her colonies and territories. I would pick the Spanish naval ensign instead:

[naval ensign in 1805]

I would fix this myself, except that I am not sure enough. Imagine the potential embarrassment … hence my question to you. I would be much obliged for any help or pointers you can offer. Thanks!

--Felixkasza (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Felixkasza, Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to contact someone on their talk page like this and I agree that a flag that didn't exist until 1849 is inappropriate for ships built mid-18th century. My advice is be bold and fix the issue yourself. If you're reverted we can always open up a discussion on the the article talk page. If you have any problems feel free to contact me again. Happy editing!--Ykraps (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's done, Ykraps, and done well enough, one hopes. Thank you for the friendly welcome and for your advice, both of which I appreciate! —Felixkasza (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Hatherill

On 4 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Richard Hatherill, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Richard Hatherill survived a mutiny and a shipwreck, only to die from an illness at the age of 35? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hatherill. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Richard Hatherill), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,610 views (467.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for George M'Kinley

On 1 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article George M'Kinley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Royal Navy officer George M'Kinley was blinded during a gun drill? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/George M'Kinley. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, George M'Kinley), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Jonas Rose

Hi, I saw you've added links to Rose on some articles so I thought I'd have a look at your draft. Got a bit confused by this sentence:

"In 1775, he began a twenty-year period of service under George Murray which saw him rise through the ranks from captain's servant to lieutenant. In 1794, Murray was given command of the North American Station and in August 1795, rewarded Rose's loyalty with the 16-gun HMS Esperance, an unrated vessel requiring only a lieutenant to command her."

Per Syrett and DiNardo, Rose was promoted lieutenant 9 October 1779 and commander 1 August 1795. It might very well just be me but I don't think this really tallies with that? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I don't have access to either Syrett or DiNardo and I don't know the exact dates of his promotions. Hore seems quite clear that he rose to the rank of lieutenant in that 20-year period. A lieutenant was of sufficient rank to command an unrated vessel and was often given charge of a prize crew to take a captured vessel to port (which Esperance was) without being promoted. At the time of writing that section, I wasn't entirely sure when commander became a rank (1794) but even after that date, commander was often used as a courtesy title. Does either source make it clear that he was officially promoted and ranked as one?

Thanks for showing an interest and sharing your information. Yours appreciatively --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I've heard of commander used as a courtesy title, what do you mean by that? I leave the following information in the hope you'll find it useful:

Syrett, David; DiNardo, R. L. (1994). The Commissioned Sea Officers of the Royal Navy 1660–1815. Aldershot: Scolar Press. p. 386. ISBN 1 85928 122 2.

• "ROSE, Jonas. Lieutenant 9 October 1779. Commander 1 August 1795. Captain 1 January 1801."

Winfield, Rif (2008). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1814. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Seaforth. p. 592. ISBN 9781783469260.

• "HMS Esperance: commissioned August 1795 at Halifax under Commander Jonas Rose. Arrived 3 November 1797 at Portsmouth and paid off."

Ibid., p. 485.

• "HMS Espion: Fitted as a troopship at Woolwich June-July 1799; recommissioned 1799 under Commander Jonas Rose; wrecked on the Goodwin Sands 17 November 1799."

Ibid., p. 477.

• "HMS Shannon: Under Captain Jonas Rose in 1801."

Ibid., p. 541.

• "HMS Jamaica: Captain Jonas Rose in March 1801 until 1804. At Battle of Copenhagen 2 April 1801; boats in action on invasion fleets near St Valery 20 August 1801; took 2-gun privateer La Fanny 13 August 1804."

Ibid., p. 496.

• "HMS Circe: Commissioned November 1804 under Captain Jonas Rose; took 4-gun Spanish privateer Fama off Oporto 1 March 1805, then took 10-gun privateer La Constance 21 June 1805; sailed for Leeward Islands 1805-06."

Ibid., p. 375.

• "HMS Ethalion: In 1807 under Captain Jonas Rose, in the Leeward Islands."

Ibid., p. 239.

• "HMS Agamemnon: In 1807 under Captain Jonas Rose; in Copenhagen expedition in August 1807, then to West Indies; sailed for the Tagus 1 January 1808, thence to South America. Wrecked off Maldonado in the River Plate 16 June 1809."

- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jonas Rose

On 29 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonas Rose, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Jonas Rose wrecked a second ship, he never worked again? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Rose. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jonas Rose), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 15,613 views (631.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Ykraps! Your work on Weymouth, Dorset has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A very nice surprise. Thank You. --Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)