Talk:Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant

message: Stephen Decatur commmanded Constitution from May 1803 to October 1804, per the official USS Constitition Museum website. Charles Stewart was commmanding the last engagement of the War of 1812 and the battle noted in 1815, as noted in this after action report by that officer. The current article looked as if it were lifted from this letter and is likely false. The name of the British ship also appears to be inconsistent: "Cyane" is also seen in the after-action report. Are we talking of a second, earlier Cyanne? --Spencerian 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First comment

message: I've moved this page from Capture of Cyane to here ("Capture of HMS Cyane") to be more consistent with other pages in this category. I've also revised the section headings to match those other pages. 
I trust that is OK with everyone (though this page still needs a lot of work to improve it). Xyl 54 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Is it accepted to make an edit in support of information added by a blocked and/or socked user? Previous versions of this page seem to fit more appropriately, but I thought I'd exercise my discussion ability about this particular situation first because it's evidently a touchy one. To be safe, I'll wait a couple of days for any feedback before making changes myself. Drugsby (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it is a citation, no. Llammakey (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, okay. Thank you for your feedback. Drugsby (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: When you are another puppet, however, the edits may be reverted on sight.  See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information added/deleted by blocked user(s) 

message: Well first off, Natty10000, my sincerest apologies. Edit-warring was not my intention. The changes themselves just seemed logical enough to make without discussion. The current version now, in my opinion, is very cluttery and fails to mention the number of guns and the participation of the Royal Marines in the infobx as it does U.S. Marines. The references provided mention Marines and Sailors on both sides - but not the specific numbers, only the general number. That's why I added the units in general instead of a specific number of any. It [the infobox] also fails to mention the fact that, in all, the belligerents' guns were equal in numbers and the Americans were not as outgunned as the caption suggests. Any thoughts on all of this? Maybe you and I can reach a consensus on this.. which is clearly what this article needs. Ameriwikipedian (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Another sock puppet.  See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a bit unexpected. I've taken a look at your investigation and it claims that I'm using other accounts but this is my only - I have no need for another account. I find its title too catchy, honestly. I don't mean to be a hastle, I'm just trying to improve a few cluttered, vague articles. My accusation aside, JohnInDC and Natty10000, can we discuss this article and come to a consensus on it? Like I said before, it clearly needs one. Ameriwikipedian (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they're running a CU right now so we'll know soon enough. JohnInDC (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: CU confirms puppetry, account blocked.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the verdict now, JohnInDC? Confirmed puppetry but practical contextual additions. I vote to keep the previous changes, but obviously that depends on the consenus. BrixtonBox (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a user account created twelve hours after the last puppets were blocked, who professes the same typographical vigilance as one of the prior socks, and whose very first edits are to come here to - helpfully sort things out, is in all likelihood a sock himself.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not exactly rocket science - just because someone is a sock and it's a rule to delete content added by them after blockage doesn't mean their information is wrong, it just means they went about adding the information the wrong way. And technically my first edit was the pledge I took when I joined the Wikipedia Typo Team to make a commitment to correct articles like these. Had to start somewhere. I'm really not looking for a paragraph back and forth, I'm just focused on improving the article so I can move on to other articles. BrixtonBox (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprisingly these observations echo those made by (confirmed sock) User:Drugsby above, here.  Again I am content to await the results of the CU, and suggest that you do as well.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I don't have much of a choice. As you were. BrixtonBox (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox changes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Capture of HMS Cyane and HMS Levant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208015318/http://history.navy.mil:80/docs/war1812/const7.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const7.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The ref from the Constitution museum mentions the number of crew at 450–500 aboard for each cruise. The existing refs list, "over 450 crew," without providing specifics. I figure the specific number for the battle would range from the given to 500. MarkMcCain (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No! The Constitution Museum reference states how many crew the Constitution might have had on a cruise at any time during the War of 1812. Roosevalt, as former Secretary of the Navy and with access to official rescords (including presumably the nominal roll) states how many men Constitution did have on the specific occasion. HLGallon (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? I've searched on and off the better part of the day for a ref to support that, but I've been unsuccessful. If you have one, please add it because the existing ref doesn't support that claim either. If nothing else there's more to support there being, simply put, over 450 crew. MarkMcCain (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Source now to hand after having been mislaid during renovations to house. Roosevelt, p.232, The verbatim quote: "The Constitution had started on her cruise very full-handed, with over 470 men, but several being absent on a prize, she went into battle with about 450." Roosevelt adds a footnote: "410 officers and seamen, and 41 marines, by her muster roll of Feb 19th. (The muster rolls are preserved in the Treasury Department at Washington." Given this cite, I will allow a figure of about 450, allowing for a difference of maybe three or four wither way, but emphatically not anywhere near 500. HLGallon (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of crew