User talk:Thewellman/Archive 2007-2011

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Thewellman, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page or on my talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing! Slambo (Speak) 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you've contributed about the articles on the Petaluma & Santa Rosa and the Northwestern Pacific. I enjoyed your account of the "Battle of Sebastopol Road," even though I'd heard about it before. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepheng3 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the

Military history WikiProject

! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our
  navigation box
  points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle
  detailed article and content review, article improvement contests
  , and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a
  style guide
  that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a
  stress hotline
  available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 06:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I see you have been writing pages on north atlantic convoys; very good! (I’ve had them on my guilt list for a while now; I didn’t know anyone else was interested.)
Can I suggest you look at some of the other convoy pages , for format, style etc? Can I also suggest you look at CLay Blairs work on the Battle of the Atlantic?; it has a lot more detail that Rohwer.
Which ones are you working on? Did you have a particular angle you wanted to pursue?
I am just composing HG 76, and was planning to do ONS18/ON202, and ON 206 after that.
Xyl 54 (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your reply: Sorry for not replying sooner; I don’t have a computer, so I’m using public access computers mostly. (I’ve got more on paper than I have on Word, at present)

.1) I can understand your concerns about the infoboxes; I’m not exactly an expert, so I don’t know if there are any guidelines anywhere. I can see it’s useful to have a thumbnail sketch/overview of the subject, and if the issues raised are expanded in the article then I think it’s enough to be consistent between the various articles.

So I’d go for consistency with other convoy pages; the standard seems to be:-

Date: from first contact to when an attack was called off (with the start and end dates in the text)

Result: Yes, tricky; I’d go with the majority of commentators; any qualification can go in the articles conclusion

Belligerent: to avoid a whole list, covering every nationality of every ship, I’d be inclined to put the flag of the escort group (again, a break-down of ships involved would be in the text. I’ve wondered if a table would be useful, but would probably link to the u.boat.net page for laziness).

Commander: Donitz for the Axis seems appropriate, as wolf-packs were mostly micro-managed from Kerneval; for the Allies the Commodore and Escort Group commander should probably both be there.

Strength: I’d go for total numbers; again, the comings and goings would be in the text.

Casualties: True, sources like Hague only list the convoy losses, but I think stragglers need to be included to give a truer picture.

.2) Blair has a point of view, I agree ( he doesn’t like the British much!) but his factual content is fairly sound. As for non-neutrality, I would probably say the same about u-boat.net ( though it’s better than some of the sites on the subject). I think non-neutral sources are OK if they are balanced against each other, and read critically. And I’m inclined to agree with him on myth aspect of the campaigns history; it squares with the numbers. I haven't come across anything by him called Battle of the Atlantic, though.

.3) My interest in the subject here is to have an article on all the main convoy actions (I’m also working on a list page) But I want to include those actions (like SC 130) where there were major u-boat losses but few, or no, ship losses; most sources have a ready-made list of the one, but not the other (non-neutrality?)

.4)Are you interested in escort tactics as well then? (another item on my guilt list!) Have you read Mark Williams book on Gilbert Roberts and the Anti-UBoat School? It has descriptions of a number of the procedures (Artichoke, Raspberry, Beta-Search etc) and how the school worked. There’s some similar stuff in Michael Gannons book on Black May as well.

Good talking to you! What were you working on next? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Food for thought; I don’t disagree; but I ‘ll need to reply to that later on.

I had a suggestion for formatting , but it’s easier to show than to tell, so I’ve taken the liberty of re-formatting your page on

The revision histories will show what I’ve done, but I’ve
.a) split it into sections
.b) moved some of the ship information to a table of losses, and made a table for the U-boat losses as well
.c) added an infobox
.d) added some text, to round out the narrative. I’ve taken the text from Blair; again, if you had different things you wanted to say, then please change it.
Xyl 54 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Thanks; I was concerned I’d be stepping on your toes.
I left some questions on the

I requested your page renaming to be reverted. Geo Swan (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yipes! I wasn't paying attention. I meant to leave a FYI on the pages of the contributor who renamed the page. Thanks for the tactful heads-up. I'll get the right name this time.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I had not appreciated the difference between a USCG vessel and a USN vessel manned by USCG. As they were USN ships I have moved the USCG reference down from the first paragraph to keep it short, since it is really now just an aside, and provided a citation. Jll (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just doing new page patrol and I saw your

Gladly done, the KC is my main thread here. I have a question, according to my sources von Forstner was severely injured in the engagement on 13 October 1943 and succumbed to his injuries 9 days later on 22 October 1943. Also, according to these sources, only part of the U 402 went down with their boat. Could you please check your sources again. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, uboat.net also lists him as KIA on 13 October while das-ritterkreuz and Marinearchiv lists 22 October. I don't know the truth but wanted to point this out to you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a footnote to the article indicating that the date of death is inconclusive. I hope you don't object. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to chip in: If it's any help, both Kemp and Niestle echo Blairs account of U-402’s destruction, on 13 Oct, and say there were no survivors.

And if it sheds any light on the matter, they both have another von Forstner, Wolfgang –Freidrich, who skippered U-472. She was destroyed in March 1944 in the Arctic, but that Forstner and more than half his crew survived.

Source of confusion? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (repeated at MisterBee1966 talk).

That is a very interesting theory and may be the source of the confusion. Unfortunately I’m not in the position to resolve the issue. I can only point out that two Forstner, Siegfried Freiherr von Forstner (Kriegsmarine) and Rupert Forstner (Heer) were the only two Forstner known to have received the Knight’s Cross. My books (cited in the article) as well as the two links I found on the Internet also indicate that he died on the 22nd and not the 13th. From what I read here I surely don’t doubt the veracity of the 13th. I suggest that we take this topic to the talk page and leave the footnote in the article as is. Maybe other editors have more and additional insight. (repeated atXyl 54 (talk) MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

T, I hope you don't mind my hopping on some of your sojurn through naval nicknames. I found them very interesting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

I enjoyed the PIRAZ article — nice add.

• It would be great if you could add a photo of General Nyland as a midshipman. Nice story about the boots. (Too bad today's boots are not spit shined.:-)

• Your mention of Robert Haebel spurred me to look for more info on the now-retired officer.

I'm pretty sure we haven't met before, but, nice to meet you now as a fellow Wikipedian.

— ERcheck (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I only referenced that when I was doing housekeeping in the category. I was more aware of the air than naval operations during Son Tay (via veteran from Thailand base), but the book I cited appears to be a very competent source by a veteran. Unfortunately I can't add more to the subject, but the book is available for limited view in GoogleBooks (just search on the title). Cheers--

comms

) ♠♥♦♣ 01:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On Convoy ON-67, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Fantastic work! Looking forward to seeing more from you soon,

I didn't revert your edit as vandalism, I reverted it because it was adding too much detail to an article that is already too long. That sort of detail would belong in an article such as British naval forces in the Falklands War. Your contribution wasn't lost as it is in the edit history. My apologies if my brief edit summary did not convey that adequately. Justin talk 12:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I realized you were going for the style over at Bath Iron Works, so I reverted my columns. I think it is much better now that you have beefed up the ship inventory, but I probably will take a stab at adding several sentences to the introductory paragraph of the article. What it really needs is a good free image of the yard from when it was in service. I may search around later but if you know of one, by all means add it at the top of the article. Sswonk (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

On Portland Terminal Company, you seem to have given a refernec tag to every instance of a fact appearing in a reference. This is unnecessary, and makes the article harder to read; you only need to give one reference, preferably the most reliable and/or easiest to access, unless something is contentious (which won't normally happen with railroads). --NE2 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the note about ON convoys where I removed the WP Canada banner. As of this morning the article didn't mention any involvement of Canadian Navy ships in the convoys (the convoys appeared to be run by the Royal Navy), so I didn't see a connection to Canadian military history. If the article is updated to mention the Canadian Navy's involvement, then by all means it would fall within the scope of WP Canada. PKT 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Very cool addition.  :-) Asbruckman (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it better placed on the colossal squid page? Asbruckman (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha! Ah well. Maybe another source on it will come emerge.... Asbruckman (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

There's a discussion

Glad to have you aboard :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you happy with the latest proposal

08:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Western Local Escort Force

On 1 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western Local Escort Force, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've done a lot of work on this article. I've just created an article on one of the ships lost - SS Empire Antelope and wondered if you could use your book by Arnold Hague to expand it a bit. Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Every little helps! Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm personally unable to verify your two Admiral Dennison citations for the text "Admiral Dennison implemented directives to have unmarked United States Navy boats, protected by six unmarked F3H Demon fighters from USS Independence (CV-62), evacuate "quite a few people" from the beach.[56] A United States destroyer fired on a Cuban shore battery during the evacuation.[56]"

The accounts of both the aircraft type and the destroyer firing seem to be contradicted by all the references I have consulted, except for just a suggestion by Dennison that F3H Demons could be launched for combat air patrols. As far as I can discover, the Independence was perhaps anchored at Key West (or Norfolk) and F3H's perhaps prepared for action but no missions actually flown. The CAPs were probably all flown by A4Ds of VA-34 from Essex, with reconnaissance flights by AD-5Ws of VFP-62 from Essex (or another carrier, eg Shangri-La) from 19 to 22 April 1961.

I'm quoting some relevant passages below from Wyden 1979, that itself was probably taken from Ferrer 1982, and Ferrer perhaps got most of the gen via his friend Arleigh Burke. I'll be most grateful if you can quote anything direct from Dennison or elsewhere that might help resolve the issue. I'm planning additions involving ships and aircraft.PeterWD (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(USN jets 19 Apr 1961) Quotes from Wyden1979 (p127) Captain S.S. ("Pete") Searcy, Jr., the skipper of the Essex, was personally pleased" that his ship had been chosen to play a key role in an American effort to "wipe out Castro and Company." He was a steely, laconic old sailor and former combat pilot, Naval Academy class of '33, with large, piercing brown eyes, a grave face and a strong resemblance to Eric Sevareid. He did not, however, share the commentator 1s liberal outlook. Pete Searcy thought of himself as a practicing patriot, a conservative and a fervent anti-Communist. His distaste for Castro was profound. So was the loyalty of the carrier's 3,200 men to their skipper. His officers said that if Pete Searcy had told them to line up and march over the side of the ship, they would not question the order. Searcy's orders were to take the Essex from its base at Quonset Point, Rhode island, to Norfolk. He thought this was strange because he had no CarDiv (carrier division) commander aboard at the time. in Norfolk he felt better when Clark and Fickenscher joined the ship and Admiral Dennison handed Searcy a sealed brown envelope. There was no discussion. Searcy was merely told that the envelope contained his operational order; that it was top secret; that only thirteen copies existed; and that he was to take it back to the ship. Searcy opened the envelope in his in-port cabin and was "completely surprised." He liked the idea of the operation, but wondered why the document was relatively brief. it did not contain the intelligence annex. (p130) Commander William J. (Jim) Forgy had been planning to take some leave and thought there was "something really screwy" about his sudden new mission. He was executive officer of VA-34 fighter squadron, the "Blue Blasters," based at Cecil Field Naval Air Station, outside Jacksonville, and the orders were to fly the squadron's twelve AD4-2 Skyhawk jets aboard the Aircraft Carrier Essex on April 4 "for ASW [antisubmarine warfare] exercises." Their equipment was to be airlifted to the Essex immediately "COD" (carrier onboard delivery). (p214) The fighter pilots of the "Blue Blasters" squadron, assigned to the Essex, became uneasy when their commanding officer, Commander Mike Griffin, summoned them to the ready room and told them they were to fly without dog tags or ID cards. They were even supposed to leave their wallets behind. The order was received with silent amazement. "To hell with that," Jim Forgy, the executive officer, said to himself. Immediately after the briefing he went to see Griffin in his stateroom. He was extremely agitated. (p240) The Navy airmen on the carrier Essex had been confined to a maddening spectator role. On Tuesday Commander Mike Griffin landed his "Blue Blasters" A4D jet on the flight deck and came up to the bridge to report to Captain Searcy. Griffin had just overflown the beach area and helplessly watched the Brigade being driven back to the sea. (p243) In Norfolk, Admiral Dennison, the Atlantic Fleet commander, had read a copy of the complicated message authorizing temporary air cover from the Essex. He shook his head and reddened. "Do not seek air combat," it said. And: "Do not attack ground targets." What was the point? How can you protect somebody if you can't shoot? It was "ridiculous." "Bumpy Road," the Navy's code for the operation, should have been called "Quagmire."

The jet pilots aboard the Essex were not told that President Kennedy had personally authorized them to protect the Brigade bombers or, in fact, that there was anything unusual about this latest sortie at all. Mike Griffin, the commanding officer of the "Blue Blasters," led the flight: two sections, a total of four unmarked Skyhawks.

(USS Eaton - shots fired) (p282) To Commodore Crutchfield on the Eaton the battle did not seem to end, either. Rejoined by his faithful shadow, the Murray, he had been reconnoitering slowly alongshore. Washington was still pressuring for information. He could see some small boats bobbing between the Eaton and the shore. Suddenly he spotted tanks rumbling toward the beach from the left. They were only some two thousand yards away. They opened fire. One shell wooshed over the bridge. It landed about fifty yards too long to hit. Another was fifty yards short. Captain Perkins, also on the bridge, thought they had been bracketed. The ship's gunners were ready. They asked for permission to return the fire. Crutchfield refused... (end quotes)

Thanks for response. I've got scanning, images and web pages (eg A-6s) to prepare for imminent journal publication, then more useless fat to remove from BoPI main article, but I might then attempt checks such as USNI online before I move the Dennison stuff to the talk page and replace it with a summary of stuff similar to that I quoted to you. I'm also awaiting loan copies of Rodriguez 1999 and Triay 2001 ordered through my local library. Sadly, some BoPI books can't be found in UK at all, level of interest is so low. Later, perhaps I could run some draft BoPI ships stuff past you - so far I've got names of 11 destroyers, 3 carriers, 2 subs in the main task force near Cayman, plus San Marcos and Northampton. Further to my previous talk, Ferrer 1982 was translation of Spanish editions of 1975&1976, so I assume it pre-dates Wyden 1979. Also, AD-5Ws from Essex might have been from VAW-12.PeterWD (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that these were actually the 50 cal version. See

Wasn't this Convoy ONS 154? I have a source which says Empire Unity was in ONS 154 when she was lost. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Very nice new info you are adding to the article, and well sourced. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Rees11 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thewellman, You're doing a good job on this article. It's getting close to a B-class article with all the in-line citations, etc, that you have added over the last few days. Well done.Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I noticed you'd left a note about a merger; I've just replied to it (sorry, I've not been around much recently). Xyl 54 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice map! Very useful addition to the article. —BMRR (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your story about the school bus! What a great story. My school district had a bus driver who was very much like the one you described. Many of us would joke that he must have been a former race car driver, based on the way he drove his bus. He had a rough exterior and was not someone you would want to mess with, but underneath all that he was a great guy. I think the high school yearbook was dedicated to him at least once, if not twice. —BMRR (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject ! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in Lombard Steam Log Hauler we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.

Please assist with any ongoing requests

You might like to take an extra interest in our To Do list

Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject

Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the list portion of Carrier-based aircraft is now at List of carrier-based aircraft. I think that will work out best. I had hoped to have expanded the text portion of Carrier-based aircraft by now, but I forgot about it amid my many other tasks on WP. I hope to get back to working on it in the next few weeks. Any suggestions you have for the articel would be greatly appreciated, as I really don't know where to start, or what all should be in the article. I mainly want to cover how carrier aircraft differ from land-based aircraft, amd its affects on aircraft design, etc. Other aspects, such as flight deck operations, are covered in other WP articles. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the map! --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the photo. I see that you uploaded it to the Commons. Do you have a link to the official photo source, or was it scanned from a book? — ERcheck (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your addition of a locomotive roster table to this article (and the TG&BR article) is welcomed. I am the originating author. However it would be best to refer to much more accurate and up to date information. Omer Lavallee's book contains many inaccuracies in its rosters, since (although he was the eminent archivist of the CPR) he drew upon another rather unreliable source for much of his data. Carl Riff of Ottawa and I have done extensive research in the original archival material to obtain the correct information. Unfortunately the revised 2nd edition of Lavallee's book appeared un-amended shortly before my "Narrow Gauge Through the Bush" and repeats the errors. NGTTB gives the most (nearly) correct data on pages 182, 183, and 368. I shall be revising the data in your TG&BR table later this weekend. Thanks. Rodclarkeca (talk) 18:19, 06 November 2009 (UTC)

Humboldt Bay has NEVER been closed off from the Pacific Ocean. Explorers and settlers used ships to enter the bay in 1806, 1848 and since. Dredging is to maintain depth of entry for larger ships and never to open or re-open a closed system. Please provide proof of Humboldt needing dredging TO AVOID CLOSURE of the entrance before you declare it a lagoon. There is no such proof. My own family (5-6 generations before me) crossed into the bay in a sailing vessel long before the Army Corp of Engineers began their work to ensure an deeper/safer opening, beginning in 1881. The jetties (stretching into the Pacific) are the other focus of their work. What information do you have that shows them dredging the entrance to preclude closure of a naturally open system? See the following article on dredging: Dredging Humboldt Bay Norcalal 04:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the lagoon entry herein, there is nothing there that declares "California's second largest natural bay" (excerpt from the Humboldt Bay Management Plan) as a lagoon. Norcalal 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have lived in northern California for over 30 years and understand Humboldt County residents' local perspective about the difference between Humboldt Bay and the three lagoons to the north. From an international geologic perspective, however, the term lagoon refers to the presence of a relatively shallow bar or reef separating the body of water from the sea. The more encompassing term bay is applied both to relatively enclosed estuaries like San Francisco or Humboldt and to relatively open areas of the sea like Bengal or Biscay. I invite your attention to the following sources:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/123144/coastal-lagoon

http://www.ldoceonline.com/Geology-topic/lagoon

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-lagoon.html

http://nesoil.com/sas/glossary.htm

The enclosing bar or reef defining a lagoon need not be complete and may be submerged. The Wikipedia article on lagoons notes many are named as bays or sounds. Inclusion of Humboldt Bay in the category Lagoons of California reflects an international perspective and should not detract from the quaint local perspective observed by the naming of the article and inclusion in the category Bays of California.Thewellman (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Several of us have the same question about San Diego Bay. (It appears you must have recently added the category "lagoon" to a number of articles.)

All the definitions of "lagoon" specify that the separated body of water is SHALLOW. San Diego Bay is deep enough to host aircraft carriers, so how does it qualify as a lagoon? It is similar in that regard to San Francisco Bay, which you did NOT idenitify as a lagoon.

Can you cite any source that identifies Humboldt Bay or San Diego Bay as a lagoon?

--MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

The work of 30 engineers, water and ocean specialists, and the compilation of information of countless other resources (Humboldt Bay Management Plan and HUMBOLDT BAY HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION & ROUNDTABLE) from the past to the present is considered "quaint local perspective" lacking an "international" perspective. I think I understand you now. Where are the international sources that declare that Humboldt Bay is a lagoon? One more thing: Of the three lagoons you mention to the north, only Big Lagoon has any regular breeching by the sea and that is only the temporary result of major storm and wave activity in winter. That is not the case with Humboldt Bay, which is always open and was before stabilization. They are quite different examples. Norcalal 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Conversation today with an expert at the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District led to the following response by email from another "in-house" expert(now lets prove it with sources): Oceanographically, Humboldt Bay currently is an "embayment" that freely exchanges water with the nearshore Pacific. The salinity values of the bay's water vary from close to 35 per mil in most places most of the time to somewhat fresher in Arcata Bay and South Bay in the winter to somewhat hypersaline in Arcata Bay in the late summer (see the Shapiro Report).

That said, in a larger geomorphological context, there's no functional difference between Humboldt Bay and Big Lagoon or Lake Earl. In a purely geomorphological sense, Humboldt Bay is a "lagoon," created by longshore currents that pile up sand in a "bay-mouth bar" between protruding headlands; functionally the headlands in this case are Table Bluff (which interrupts the bar, otherwise it would be False Cape to the south) and the point north of Little River.

This is essentially the summer-season state for all of the "embayments" and "estuaries" along the Northern California coast (I rather suspect it's the state of all rivers along the entire coast in our Mediterranean climate -- bears some thought). All of the smaller river mouths are subject to closure every year (especially in drought conditions), and even larger river mouths sometimes close (the Eel River became a "lagoon" for a month or so one summer in the late 1980s, and the Russian River mouth is maintained open the same way Lake Earl is, by tractor).

The bay doesn't function in a purely geomorphological sense, of course, because the jetties at the entrance and the maintenance dredging prevent the bar from closing. However, under pre-settlement conditions it's likely that the bar west of Humboldt Bay was often closed for months in many years. Some people think that's why it took so long for the bay to be "discovered" by Europeans.

So everyone is right...or, rather, correct. But we need sources to improve the article. However, the fact that it IS an embayment now has primacy over how it WAS probably a "functional" lagoon. Right? Norcalal 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right that

Nice work; I like it! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see you're completing the pages for WWII British naval guns. I've made a start on a template for WWII British & Commonwealth Naval Weapons above... you may like to update it and add it to appropriate weapon pages... regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for the appreciation. As for the "French perspective", well, I'm merely doing my best. The details of the history of French North Africa are relatively forgotten, including in France, so I'd say the english articles are not that bad, whatever misconceptions there may be. At present, some articles are actually absent from the French wikipedia while the English version adresses them (the Casablanca naval battle being one of them !). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, vice-admiral Frix Michelier (very unusual surname, I might add) is mentioned here, for example : he is presented as commander on par with Noguès (the text always says "Noguès AND Michelier"). Here it says that Michelier did not initially believe that the Allies would try to invade North Africa, and that the resistance members acting on behalf of Giraud were actually Gestapo double agents who wanted to give Germany a reason for occupying Morocco. Ironically, he had received a crypted message from Vichy alerting him about a possible British-American invasion, but the message had not yet been decoded when the invasion began. He and Noguès were co-responsible for the resistance against the Allies. Here it says that Michelier told Noguès that there were no allied ships in Morocco, which led Noguès to not believe General Béthouard's message about the ceasefire, and led in turn the French forces to fight back in the absence of an order. It says here that he was violently anti-British. Here it says that Michelier was not pro-German and had tried to persuade Laval that Germany would lose the war and that collaboration was pointless; this, however, fell on deaf ears. Michelier actually resisted allied invasion because he had not received a regular order from his hierarchy. After the invasion, Giraud appointed him as commander in chief of all French naval forces in North Africa. However, when Giraud and de Gaulle's administration merged, he was sacked with the other commanders who had opposed the invasion, and was forced to retire. He faced the French High court of Justice but was ultimately found not guilty of treason. It seems that in 1955 he managed to have his order of mandatory retirement annulled. I could find his timeline here. Hope this could help. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am contacting you because you are a naval ordnance contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me regarding conversion of naval artillery dimensions. I agree metric to English (or American Standard) dimensions is a problem; although I'm uncertain my knowledge of the Wikipedia style manual is adequate to propose a solution. My primary concern is with regard to significant figures. Manufacturing standards for any given weapon probably involved three or four decimal places; but manufacturing standards are seldom discussed in articles. When it comes to comparison of similar weapons (or describing the same weapon in different units), I doubt there is any practical benefit to providing more than two decimal places. I question, for example, providing separate categories for 200 mm artillery and 203 mm artillery. It is difficult to differentiate a 6-inch projectile from a 15-cm projectile without sophisticated measuring devices and relatively detailed information about the gun firing it. Range comparisons in yards and meters often imply an unrealistic precision ignoring salvo spreads and shot to shot variability of hundreds of yards over the useful life of the gun. I anticipate there may be instances where additional precision may be valuable, but I believe they will be the exception where a variation from two-significant-figure standards would be obvious in the explanation of the information. Measured differences can often be better described in two significant figures rather than by presenting both measured quantities with more significant figures. (For example, the difference between 8-inch guns and 20-cm guns is 3.2mm or 1.6% rather than 203.2mm vs 200.0mm.)Thewellman (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit of the

BL 6 inch Mk XXIII naval gun article leads me to conclude you have reservations about my approach to the matter. I respect your decision to apply Campbell's 4-significant-figure conversion; but I wonder if I might take the liberty of exploring some of the technical issues. Given the thermal expansion coefficient of steel, Campbell's 4-digit figure would be accurate over a temperature range of 6 Celsius degrees. I'm uncertain what the manufacturing specification may have been, but assuming 6.000 inches at twenty degrees means Campbell's conversion would be high for measurements made at temperatures below 17 degrees and low for measurements made at temperatures over 23 degrees. United States Navy practice specified bourrelet diameter at 0.015 inch less than nominal bore diameter with a minus manufacturing tolerance such that the average maximum diameter of a 6-inch projectile (neglecting the malleable copper rotating band) was expected to be 5.988 inches. Rotating band diameter was a few thousandths of an inch greater than the groove-to-groove diameter of rifling depth typically up to one percent of caliber, and might have been as great as 6.12 inches. Bore diameters were measured land-to-land with positive manufacturing tolerances. Erosion was expected to increase that diameter over the life of the gun; but no effect on dispersion was anticipated until bore diameter exceeded 6.038 inches. Concern was greater about possible reduction of bore diameter. Copper deposits from rotating bands were common, but of less concern than the possibility of bore constriction caused by hoop slippage past a shoulder during relative movement of the elements of a built-up gun. I would value any information you might have about the handling of similar issues in Royal Navy practice.Thewellman (talk

) 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I was simply using the "International inch" conversion factor which assumes an inch is "exactly" 25.4 mm, which is used by the Wiki converter. I'm aware this is merely a compromise adopted in 1959 between the US and Imperial conversions i.e. before the gun in question. I'm aware that bore of "6 inches" is subject to tolerances, as is the ammo, and that 2.54 mm conversion is not "exact", and that degrees of precision used will result in under or over conversion at different tolerances. However, 2.54 is the Wiki standard for what it's worth, and I used it in the gun's infobox as to me it seemed appropriate that as the infobox is the "primary" source of data the conversion there should be as precise as possible, whereas for references within other articles' text I totally agree that a more sensible & less pedantic rounding is appropriate : the practical reality is that a 6-inch gun equates to a 15-cm gun. I didn't mention this in the thoughts I posted to your and others talk pages, but should have done. I'm still working on what to recommend for additions to MOS re. gun calibre conversions and value your further feedback. BTW - British 6-inch shell tolerances ran 5.95 - 5.97 inches in WWI, not sure about WWII. Regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to pass on a thanks for the USN tactical info (even if I did sink it ;p). I added it here, instead. If you can find more of the same on IJN use, I'd happily see it added to Type 93. Have you ever seen pix or diagrams of IJN's projected "torpedo cruiser"? IIRC, she had 5x5 TT. 80 TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the use of categorizing this article under Category:Defunct California railroads. While railroads are mentioned, the article is primarily about the river. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Similarly with Navarro River. Perhaps separate articles about the railroads would be more appropriate.--Stepheng3 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I created Fort Bragg and Southeastern Railroad article and deleted Category:Defunct California railroads from the Albion River, Big River (California), and Navarro River articles.Thewellman (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I now have a better understanding of the difficulties involved in capturing this sort of information in Wikipedia. I know it's possible to categorize redirects, so perhaps you should create a redirect from the railroad to the river (or town or logging company) and categorize the redirect as a railroad.--Stepheng3 (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite puzzled by this edit you made last year [2]. "Electronic" fuze in 1880s - ?? Could you check it against the source once again?

• I found this New York Times from 1890, scroll 3/4 down to "The Merriam Fuse". It is described as a conventional
  NVO (talk
  ) 10:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the reference. I agree with you that an electronic fuze is relatively unlikely at that date and suggest you modify the article to conform to your reference. My reference citation applied to the whole paragraph; and should be retained at the end of the previous sentence.Thewellman (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated James Charles Fahey, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 06:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with your use of the word 'butchering'; it seems overly emotional. Did Fahey himself describe it as such? If so, where? DS (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The word appeared in quotes in the United States Naval Institute article.here The context suggests the term was used by his widow while recalling circumstances of her husband's early work.Thewellman (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk