`  *Help pages *Tutorial *How to write a great article *Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!   It looks like you've been very active in the last few days! I have one request: could you please provide your reference(s) for Zone of immunity? Cheers,    :Well, the main page describing citations is Wikipedia:Citing sources, but it's kind of geared towards experienced users. You certainly don't need to insert footnotes into Zone of immunity. In practice, you can just replace the  tag at the bottom with a description of your source, and don't worry about getting the formatting right! I can always help with the cosmetics.    Hi, I've replied on my own talk page.    Hi Dad,  sorry to be dim. I thought this might be the only way to leave messages, but it seemed rather rude somehow! Have you seen the page on Jackie Fisher? looks rather sparse on the details of the great man. Perhaps you'd like to have a go?    Hello. I've replied on my talk page - I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place.    Actually, it looks like my response has been pre-empted, as most of those pages have been deleted. It's a shame nobody else was as thoughtful as you, since noone else asked why I created them. Such speed!    Hello. Thanks very much for your messages. I was rather upset about the roads thing, so I decided to cool off and not log-in for a while. I don't know whether the articles were worthy or not, but appreciate the fresh perspective all the comments gave me. I was too close to the project to really be objective. Anyway, I will continue to contribute - but in slightly less controversial, and more complete ways!    ==Spelling==  Thank you for clearing up that rule of spelling variations for me. I was unaware that such a rule existed. However, I'm now curious as to why you changed ``favor`` to ``favour`` in the first place if, as you explained to me, such a change was unneeded.    I didn't mean to give the impression that I wanted to fight over such a small and insignificant thing - I was merely curious. Sorry for the confusion.   == HMS Valiant (1863) ==  Of course - feel free. Stub articles are only placeholders anyway, I feel; ``here is a couple of lines summarising the article that will eventually replace it``. Good luck! (Incidentally, I note you created Defence Class; the standard form for naming these is Defence class battleship, and I've moved the article. The link you had for Warrior class went to an article on some warrior caste somewhere...)  |  |   *I've given it a copyedit; some explanations. You don't need to link to the article itself inside the article; this just gets confusing for editors. The introduction should be in a broadly standard form (``X`` is/was a ``Y`` of ``Z``), before moving onto the history. Ship names should be, if possible, italicised - you can do this with links like [[HMS Whatever|HMS ''Whatever'']]. Otherwise, looks good to me.  |  |   :Sure - no need to ask permission. (If you want to doing some from scratch, we've almost none on the various Admiral class battleships, & they're weird enough they seem to deserve articles!)...  |  |   == HMS Royal Oak ==  You are more than welcome to rewrite the article, and thank you very much for asking. Have a nice day and happy wiki'ing!    ==HMS Swiftsure (1870)==  Hello, Tony!  Having chanced upon your recent post on  talk page, I thought you might appreciate being informed of the existence of the HMS Swiftsure (1870) stub. This item has a curious history; when I came across it a few weeks ago, I discovered that the ship described in it was an entirely different vessel of the same name, lanched in 1903. I therefore created a new article and copied the existing text across. From what you told Johann Wolfgang, the 1870 ship should be right up your street.  Can I also take the opportunity to thank you for taking up the baton for ironclads and ``pre-Dreadnoughts``. Coverage of these fascinating ships is sparse in Wikipedia (I would like to work on them, but I don't have the expertise). I have added this page to my watchlist.   Hope this is useful.   Regards,    == Photo sources ==  It's always hard to tell quite when an old photograph is in copyright and when it isn't; UK law is very confusing in this regard, and there's no reliable rule as to whether or not republishing something affects it.  The US Naval Historical Center has an online gallery of public-domain images; most of these are of course American, but there's a few foreign ships in there. This has the British ones, which offhand seems to include about half-a-dozen ships of the period. If you upload any of these, mark them as .  The Imperial War Museum has a photograph database, but the copyright status varies. Per this, any of them listed as ``Crown copyright`` and dated to before 1955 can be freely reused. If you upload any of these, mark them as . Not all of them have digital images attatched, either.  Those are the first two web sources that spring to mind - if you have any old books with images, it may well be legal to scan these, depending on the details. Let me know if you have any trouble uploading images.  |  |   *Wikimedia Commons may also have some useful images: commons:Category:Royal Navy battleships.  |  |   == Prince Albert ==  Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I linked Victoria there but didn't link through to Albert... fixed now, anyway. Thanks for putting these articles up - it's interesting reading, and nice to see decent content going up.  |  |   == DYK ==   {| class=``messagebox standard-talk`` |- | |On  , Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ocean (1862), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ``Did you know?`` talk page. |}  == Lorenzo ==  Hi Anthony! You commented on the link that I removed from the Lorenzo de' Medici page. Yes, I still think it served no purpose. Even if the English translator decided to mention Lorenzo's name in the title of the book, of course the book is not really about him but the city. If Machiavelli's views on the Medici are important, one could instead expand the article itself and summarize them in a few words. In fact I could do this myself. But it should be noted that Machiavelli's views on Lorenzo may tell us more about Machiavelli than they tell us about Lorenzo.  However, if you think that the link ought to be restored, I think that at the very least it should be changed to point to the chapter of the book in which Machiavelli actually talks about Lorenzo.    == Ettiquette ==  For metric/imperial - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement boils down to ``using either is no big deal``. Whilst the numbers were never used in the period, it is more useful to many readers (especially Europeans) to give a size in metres - it should be given as a converted figure, in brackets, since it's not the original source, but there's no harm in leaving it in if it's not excessive.  (This makes more sense when you consider, say, articles on classical antiquity - our articles would be very confusing for the reader if we avoided putting (X miles) after saying that something was however many stadia long.)  Unless the converted figures are wrong or just oddly misleading (lik