User talk:Eastfarthingan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DYK

Hi, would you mind if I nominated Action of 4 September 1782 for DYK? Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

By all means. Thank you! ChrisWet (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A quick question: the picture used spells the cannon as caronnade, but the article as carronade. Which is right? Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It should be Carronade but the picture file title is misspelt. ChrisWet (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Action of 4 September 1782, and DragonflySixtyseven moved the picture to the right name for me. Thanks, Mat ty.007 15:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. ChrisWet (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks for permission to nominate it, if all goes well, you will be getting a DYK acknowledgement soon. Mat ty.007 15:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Were you planning on nominating Action of 15 February 1783 as well? If not, would you mind if I nominated it? Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. What would the DYK be for on this? ChrisWet (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I will think on the hook. I will likely not be too active tomorrow, so Wednesday I will probably do this. Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I will look forward to it. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The hook may change, but it is at this page. Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How could I not see that coming! Cheers. ChrisWet (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't take too long to come through. Mat ty.007 16:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice article

At Action of 15 February 1783. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Or even Action of 15 February 1783! Or both! :) --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Action of 4 September 1782

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Action of 15 February 1783

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done! I turned on feedback at the article, do you want me to turn it off after it goes off the main page, or will you use it to improve the article? Thanks, Mat ty.007 16:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Leave feedback on; that is fine. Thank you! ChrisWet (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you have created several new articles, and wondered if you were interested in self nominating them? If so, the guidelines are at this page, and should be read before nominating. Thanks, Mat ty.007 09:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed and there is a lot more to come too! Thank you. ChrisWet (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Battle of Flores (1592)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Battle of Flores (1592), ChristiaandeWet!

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

excellent work.

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you! ChrisWet (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You have bounced back magnificently from a difficult start, creating numerous articles of an extremely high standard, well done! Mat ty.007 20:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Most gracious! ChrisWet (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. ChrisWet (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Siege of Middelburg (1572-1574)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Siege of Middelburg (1572-1574), ChristiaandeWet!

Wikipedia editor Daniel Cavallari just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very interesting!

To reply, leave a comment on Daniel Cavallari's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Your GA nomination of Battle of Flores (1592)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Flores (1592) 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 Typing General -- Typing General (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! ChrisWet (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for writing the article. The article does have a few problems that need to be fixed, so could you take a look at the GAN page?--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 06:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, started on it and put some of it right, will continue on it later. ChrisWet (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please update the talk page with your progress as I don't normally monitor nominators' talk pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Flores (1592)

Hello. Are you busy? Great article, but it does have some problems. Could you check the talk page?--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 01:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do what I can in the next few weeks. ChrisWet (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Narrow Seas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Narrow Seas 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 Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) 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 ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)

The article Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the Narrow Seas Ga nomination

I've already begun commenting on the GA review page, although I'm still digging up the source material. Please address these issues as you are able. I hope to complete my review by next weekend. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Narrow Seas

The article Battle of the Narrow Seas 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:Battle of the Narrow Seas for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Narrow Seas

The article Battle of the Narrow Seas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Narrow Seas for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You have five days after this GA promotion (until the 25th) to nominate the article at the Did You Know project. Since you're the article's primary author I'll defer to you. If you're not interested in DYK, please let me know so I could nominate it. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do just that. ChrisWet (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you think would be a good piece from the article to be used on the the Did You Know project? ChrisWet (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You could write "... that the Battle of the Narrow Seas marked the end of the war galley in favor of the galleon in naval combat?" or if you added what I had suggested, "... that Italian captain Fredrico Spinola was only 29 when he faced English and Dutch fleets at the Battle of the Narrow Seas?" DYK requires that the hook is interesting and comes directly from cited material, so you have to be precise. I thought the fact that most of the Spanish galleys were sunk by ramming is interesting, but you have that fact by a synthesis of sources and you'd need a cited source to enunciate exactly that. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect the rammings are a good one. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)

The article Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reopened for another week per your comment. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581)

The article Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Hi ChrstiaandeWet, do you want some help with your DYK nom? Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Think so, what can you do? Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was meaning to fix the hook, so that you have a bolded link to the nominated article and a question mark at the end, and fix it so that it credits you for bringing it to GA status. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do, I can learn from this. Thanks. ChrisWet (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed those. Also to note is that the actual fact, i.e. the fact that the majority of the Spanish galleys were sunk by ramming, needs to be explicitly stated in the article, with a source directly after the statement. If you want to see my quick how to list, it's here. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid Jakec is right, I hadn't looked at the promotion date. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither did, I lessoned learned. ThanksChrisWet (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, here is a new one which I ave created. What do you think? Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Flores (1592) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)ChrisWet (talk)

OK, I have fixed the issues, but I hope you don't mind me saying here what was wrong with the template: you need to fill in the initial template thing when you are making the template; fill in the article name, what the article status is (GA), who took it there (author), end with a ? as 'Did you know that da di dah?' is a question, and lastly, bold with '''[[Battle of Flores (1592)]]''' so that the article is prominent in the hook. Other than that, good work and a good GA. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Flores (1592)

The article Battle of Flores (1592) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Flores (1592) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Typing General -- Typing General (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This one is most definitely in DYK timescsale if you want to nominate it. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, there is quite a few DYK points from this article too. ChrisWet (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Battle of Flores (1592)

Hello! Your submission of Battle of Flores (1592) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Flores (1592)

The DYK project (nominate) 10:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

5.704 views, which is above average for a DYK! Nice new name by the way... Best, Mat ty.007 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it had a good day and kept on rising. Thanks. Shire Lord (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Referencing issue in Spanish Armada

In 2013, you made these additions to the Spanish Armada article. In them you reference a book by Hansen, and in one provide a quote. You used short form citations to a book: "Hansen pg 563". Unfortunately, there are no other references on the page to any book by Hansen. After much looking around, reling mostly on searching for "Hansen", I have come to realize that you probably intended these to be "Hanson", not Hansen. However, a search for part of the quote you used returns a result to a different book. I am reluctant to change the citation, particularly given that it contains a quote. I was wondering if you could correct these so that a reference is available on the page to the book in which the quote appears. Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello it is from this book The Confident Hope Of A Miracle: The True History Of The Spanish Armada by Neil Hanson. Will add & change this. Hope this helps. Shire Lord (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was the book I considered most likely. I only noticed the issue when an IP user changed the quote. I reverted that change, but was trying to do due diligence to verify the source and noticed the lack of the full book information. It appeared clear you had the book information. I had assumed it was just a mistake that it hadn't ended up in the article. Thanks again. — Makyen (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem; looking through it, I think I may have forgotten to add the book in the bibliography whilst putting the quote. Thanks for spotting. Shire Lord (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Sittang Bend

Thanks from → Call me Hahc 21) 16:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

8,159 views & counting. Shire Lord 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

1940 French Army of the Alps

Hey, I am canvassing active MILHIST members who have stated they are interested in French military history during the Second World War.

II am wondering if you can help, I am trying to improve the quality of the Italian invasion of France article. I have checked the limited sources I can access regarding the Army of the Alps, and nothing seems to add up. Some sources state that on 20 June, when the Italian main attack was launched against the Alpine Line, that the army had 3-4 divisions and others state it was as high as 7. Do you have any information that can clarify what the state of this army was?

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I will have a look into this but it is a shame this is not featured in any of the military blunders of WWII books. Shire Lord 19:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Anything you can dig up should be useful in ironing out all the details. Thanks for your time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Rio Nuevo (1658)

Hello! Your submission of Battle of Rio Nuevo (1658) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Leeds meetup

Hello! I don't know if you're aware but there is a wikimedia meet up in Leeds this Saturday (14 June) if you're interested. Hopefully you can make it. Regards IJA (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I will see what I can do. Shire Lord 18:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers mate IJA (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Action of 30 September 1780) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Action of 30 September 1780, Lord Eastfarthing!

Wikipedia editor Missionedit just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Missionedit's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

& this one too Action of 12 December 1779

Franco-Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762)

Hello Lord Eastfarthing! Thanks for helping in the article Spanish invasion of Portugal. It’s always a pleasure to meet a person who -like my self- loves so much Military History. Putting a picture inside the Military Box (Count Lippe) was an excellent idea since the Box was indecent ("topless"). However, I think the image of Campbell is not appropriated because it doesn’t match in the chapter (a people in arms). A picture with guerrilleros, preferentially in the mountains, would be perfect, but it’s difficult to find. As for the previous image of Burgoyne| Battle of Saratoga, i can see you are a Patriot. I understand and respect your feelings. I would like to offer you my help and ask yours, -when necessary-, a kind of Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. Greetings 85.241.243.210 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! Thank you. Feel free to move or remove the image of Campbell at your will. regards Shire Lord 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Franco-Spanish invasion of Portugal (1762)

Sorry, i forgot to log in in the previous message. Hispanicultur (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Battle off Ist) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Battle off Ist, Lord Eastfarthing!

Wikipedia editor George.Edward.C just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Pretty good article, definately notable. Well done!

To reply, leave a comment on George.Edward.C's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating Battle off Ist. It's just the sort of obscure minor destroyer action I like reading about. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I found it fascinating and I'm sure I can find another one Shire Lord 02:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice

7th Armoured Div. pic! Never seen that before. Good spot. Do you think the Aussie example should be added in addition? (Keep everyone happy} Cheers Irondome (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and done: along with the Israeli one too. Shire Lord 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Good work! Great improvement. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, may do the same on other tank pages if better images are needed. Shire Lord 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish armada revisions

The result was indecisive according to various recent studies about it, notably a study done by respected historian José Luis Casado Soto, with a team of dutch, english, french and spanish historians for reference: (Los barcos españoles del siglo XVI y La Gran Armada de 1588. 1988). The historians mentioned on the previous revision, with the exception of Richard Holmes, did studies previous to this one so their findings aren't as reliable. Holmes states the result was indecisive and that English propaganda touted it as a victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jldg89 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Holmes quote is from a book about decisive conflicts. Regrading the result, the operation was after all to complete an invasion of England. Since the invasion failed, calling the campaign indecisive is hardly the result that deserves merit. Shire Lord 20:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The operation was mainly to escort troops from Flanders through the channel. The objective was to supply the Tercios in Flanders. The Spanish Armada itself was not defeated, as it only lost 20 ships. The other ships lost were italian or german ships on lease or from other allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jldg89 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We seemed to be engaged in a edit war so I will cease for now and await further consensus. The operation was for the ultimate invasion of England which did not succeed. Again calling the whole operation indecisive is just plain wrong. In terms of the war itself, long term yes it was indecisive and this is what Holmes is pointing out. If he thought the campaign was indecisive then he would not have used this in a book about 'decisive conflicts'. Also whether the other ships were Italian, German etc. is irrelevant since they were owned by the Spanish crown. Shire Lord 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

PhD

• Dando, N. (2014). The Impact of Terrain on British Operations and Doctrine in North Africa 1940–1943 (PDF) (PhD). Plymouth University. OCLC 885436735. Retrieved 25 March 2015.

Thought you might like this.Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you for this - will look in to this tomorrow. regards Shire Lord (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Burma campaign template

I hope you were not offended by my reversion of your recent edits to the Template:Campaignbox Burma Campaign. However, I feel that lumping all the actions fought by "Y" Force (the Chinese National Revolutionary Army attacking from Yunnan and "X" Force (the Chinese/American Northern Combat Area Command into a single campaigning season (1942-1943) would distort the narrative, both from the point of view of timeline (the Yunnan/Burma Road campaign lasted almost as long as the entire Burma Campaign) and that of strategic impact; e.g. the capture of Myitkyina impacted on the Hump and the Chindits campaign and vice versa, the logic of which would be lost if Myitkyina was placed a season earlier. Regards, HLGallon (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, you did the right edit and I stand corrected. No problem. Regards Shire Lord (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanking frenzy

Do you have Auto Ed enabled? It tidies common errors like the space here: *{{cite book to * {{cite book and the wrong sort of dashes etc but also eliminates lines under headers, as you've noticed.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I do now, and er... thanks again ! Shire Lord (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone's also been changing {{#tag:ref||group=nb/group=note}} to {{refn||group=nb/group=note}} and I've been going over mine and using {{efn| }} as it's simpler.Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Mahé

My Dear Lord Eastfathing (any other form of address feels wrong somehow), you may have noticed that over the last few weeks I have been working in my sandboxes on a series of articles describing the East Indies campaign of the French Revolutionary Wars with the intention of turning them into a Good Topic. Other than completing the overall article the only remaining battle I want to work on is Battle of Mahé which you created back in January (actually I still have to do the invasion of South Africa, but that is going to be a pain in the arse, so I'm putting it off). I just wanted to leave a note to let you know my intentions: your article is good, but I wanted to expand it and add some more context and sources in my sandbox before merging it back with the mainspace article. Please do let me know if that'll be a problem, Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I will look forward to the finished articles, and job well done on those that have been finished. If you have found more details on the Battle of Mahé then do please feel free to add what is needed, even if the article is rewritten. I'm sure I will be most pleased on the extension. Many thanks Jack. Regards Shire Lord (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

New picture

I think I saw Elizabeth Bennett in your new Brimham Rocks photo. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was there the other day & was reminded of the fact that scenes were filmed there. Lovely place. Shire Lord (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Even more lovely than the purlieus of Hull? ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly! Shire Lord (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)