DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP flag

Hello, $1LENCE D00600D! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tony the Marine (Tony the Marine: Talk|UB|Home)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

wp/lez edit

Hello, could you not do 10 small edits to the lezgin section incubator wikipedia. Not enough for statistics. Thank you in advance.Namik555 (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

UK vs. Great Britain edit

Welcome on board, $1LENCE D00600D. You've done some great work so far with creating the articles on Carribean pirate battles. Just a hint though, the United Kingdom was only established in 1800, so you'd want to use {{flagicon|Kingdom of Great Britain}} and {{flagicon|Kingdom of Great Britain|naval}} for the infobox, as those flags don't have the Irish St. Patrick's Cross included yet. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Roberto Cofresí edit

Thank you for your good-faith contribution, however I removed the "Cabo Rojo" due to his birthplace" simply because it wasn't so, plus any addition made to the article must cite and provide a reliable verifiable source as required by Wikipedia policy. While it is true that Cabo Rojo was the town that he was born in, he was never known as anything else but "El Pirata Cofresí". Thank you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Border War (1910-1918) edit

Hi. I've undone one of your edits to this article (this one) for two reasons: you changed the outcome of a battle, which I think calls for a supporting citation; and the resulting sentence actually didn't make any sense. I realize that the original article might be incorrect in its statement of who won and who lost, but since your changing the status quo, it falls on you to back up your change with a citation from a reliable source. The sentence problem you can clear up quickly, it looks like you just left out a couple of words that would make it make sense. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet report edit

Please note that I have filed this sockpuppet report, which concerns this account. You may respond there if you like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

License tagging for File:SMS Mowe.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading File:SMS Mowe.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

File copyright problem with File:SMS Mowe.jpg edit

 

Thank you for uploading File:SMS Mowe.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

19th century wars in Vietnam edit

I've read several of your articles such as Bombardment of Quim-hon. It's cool. I pay a lot of attention to 19th century foreign wars in Vietnam. If you have many more sources, please create more articles about the 19th century British, French and American involvements in Vietnam. BTW, there was also a 1845 clash between the US and Vietnam when the US attack a Vietnamese city to force the Vietnamese government to release the French missionaries. If you have sources, please create an article about it. I'm looking to see more 1800s foreign (especially the US) combats in Vietnam. Cheer. Qajar (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I consider myself to be a "page starter", I merely create little pages (generally history) and over time they get expanded by other users. Often I do a little expanding myself but usually I like to work on adding templates and pictures. Only when I am extremely interested with a topic do I spend the time to create a lengthy article about it. It just so happens that 19th century Asia is probably my most favorite subject to read and write about. It's hard sometimes to find information about some of those events back then and I woundn't consider myself to be an expert. I had know idea there was an incident as you described between the United States and Vietnam in 1845, I created many of the "19th century Asia/Pacific conflicts involving the United States" articles so it is certainly something I'll look into. A conflict with the US Navy and the Vietnamese doesn't suprise me though, the United States and the European powers engaged in several conflicts in the 1800s which were referred to as "small wars" in the United States. Thanks for the message and thanks for letting me know of that 1845 incident.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppetry edit

Based on checkuser evidence at this case, it has been determined that you have used the User:Az81964444 account in the past, and based on behavioral evidence it's likely that you have used others. Our policy states that every editor is restricted to one account. The normal response to sockpuppetry is an indefinite block, however I am making an exception in your case. There is no evidence that you have used caused disruption on Wikipedia, using alternate accounts or otherwise, and you've actually done some good work on Wikipedia. So I am taking no action against you, you're free to continue editing as you have been. Just know in the future that any use of alternate accounts aside from uses outlined at WP:SOCK#LEGIT can and will lead to sanctions against you, including an indefinite block. Please just stick to one account from now on, thank you. -- Atama 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bombardment of Cárdenas edit

Hello, I've seen the article that you created about the alleged bombardment. I notice you that according to ancient and modern sources, even American, Cárdenas was not attacked again during the war after the battle of 11 May. Moreover, some of the ships blockaded into the port could depart it after the major engagement and participated in following operations. See the Historical dictionary of the Spanish American War, or La guerra Hispano-americana: El bloqueo y la defensa de las costas, for example. ElBufon (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The existence of American accounts of the combat should not be a proof of its existence. According to the accounts by Young, Helm and Jungen about the attacks on Manzanillo, there were nine Spanish warships in the harbour, some of them ranging from 300 to 400 tons, besides a 1,000-ton torpedo gunboat and a schooner full of "fierce Spaniards", and were covered by numerous shore batteries armed with 6-pounds guns. What was the reality? The Spanish force consisted of 3 small gunboats and 3 pontoons crewed by 107 men. The biggest ship was an old 255-ton wooden pontoon (former gunboat) poorly armed and crewed by 4 gunners. The "shore batteries" were in fact three field guns of 80 or 90 mm. It's clear therefore, that the American commander's accounts greatly exaggerated the action. What to say about the alleged bombardment of Cárdenas? Artillery Captain Severo Gómez Núñez, who had been ordered to built various shore batteries in the harbour and began to do it on 12 May doesn't mention any attack against Cárdenas in the books he wrote about the war (see the second link above), as well as many modern sources. See for example the Atlas of American military history. ElBufon (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Forgive me, the little article was based on the book "The Boys of 98" which features accounts as well as some reports of the various naval actions during the war (I was mistaken, it was not based on a commander's report). The part of the book that features a description of the bombardment reads; May 12. On Thursday morning, May 12th, the gunboat Wilmington stood in close to the coast, off the town of Cardenas, with her crew at quarters. She had come for a specific purpose, which was to avenge the Winslow, and not until she was within range of the gunboats that had decoyed the Winslow did she slacken speed. Then the masked battery, which had opened on the American boat with such deadly effect, was covered by the Wilmington’s guns. There were no preliminaries. The war-vessel was there to teach the Spaniards of Cardenas a lesson, and set about the task without delay. The town is three miles distant from the gulf entrance to the harbour, therefore no time need be wasted in warning non-combatants, for they were in little or no danger. During two weeks troops had been gathering near about Cardenas to protect it against American invasion; masked batteries were being planted, earthworks thrown up, and blockhouses erected. There was no lack of targets. Carefully, precisely, as if at practice, the Wilmington opened fire from her 4-inch guns, throwing shells here, there, everywhere; but more particularly in the direction of that masked battery which had trained its guns on the Winslow, and as the Spaniards, panic-stricken, hearing a death-knell in the sighing, whistling [pg 134]missiles, fled in mad terror, the gunboats’ machine guns were called into play. It is safe to assert that the one especial object of the American sailors’ vengeance was completely destroyed. Not a gun remained mounted, not a man was alive, save those whose wounds were mortal. The punishment was terrible, but complete. Until this moment the Spaniards at Cardenas had believed they might with impunity open fire on any craft flying the American flag; but now they began to understand that such sport was in the highest degree dangerous. During a full hour—and in that time nearly three hundred shells had been sent on errands of destruction—the Wilmington continued her bombardment of the defences. When the work was completed two gunboats had been sunk so quickly that their crews had no more than sufficient time to escape. Two schooners were converted into wrecks at their moorings. One blockhouse was consumed by flames, and signal-stations, masked batteries, and forts were in ruins. While this lesson was in progress the Spaniards did their best to bring it to a close; but despite all efforts the Wilmington was unharmed. There was absolutely no evidence of conflict about her when she finally steamed away, save such as might have been read on the smoke-begrimed faces of the hard-worked but triumphant and satisfied crew.
That's all I can say, the action did occur apparently, whether the account is was exaggerated or not I don't know. It can be hard sometimes to ascertain specific enemy casualties when you are firing on them from a naval gun hundreds of yards away, perhaps that is why accounts differ, or as you say, don't exist. Thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The only thing I can think of is that the author has been confused with the Third Battle of Manzanillo. The gunboats allegedly sunk were later delivered to the Cuban authorities in Havana. In addition, Cárdenas was a port of less importance than Manzanillo and was therefore less protected. There weren't infantry troops in Cárdenas, nor forts or blockhouses. The narration of the book closely resembles that of the Third Battle of Manzanillo. Have you find references to the bombardment in other sources? ElBufon (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
It may sound like it was the Third battle of Manzanillo but the source is pretty clear that it was at Cardenas, the day after the Spanish won the naval battle. Apart from that I don't know. The blockhouses were make-shift if I remember correctly and the forts descibed may be referring to the artillery batteries at Cardenas. (Often in old US navy reports, artillery batteries are called forts). I can't say off the top of my head if I found any other sources for this action but I will look around. (Iusually like to keep all information like this close at hand) Something seems fishy, if this engagement really did occur, there should be something more than just the "Boys of '98" book. If it really did not occur, than I have no explanation other than that is what it said in the book. Like I wrote above, I will look around and try to find some more info. Thanks again.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As for the Battle of Manzanillo and Spanish forces there (I should have addressed this earlier), you sound like more of the expert when it comes to that topic, if you say the information in the article about Spanish strength that day was exaggerrated or inaccurate from American sources, that is fine, make changes accordingly. The War of 1898 is one of my favorite subjects but I am by no means an expert.
OK. For deletion, I think that you have to propose the article. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. ElBufon (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
As you basically have been the only contributor, it had been better /faster to solve this by just adding {{db-author}} to the article. Write short in the edit summary you now believe the article to be a misundertanding, or at least a short reason why. If the article is gone when you read this, this tip was just for the record. Greswik (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possible Typos edit

I noticed that you replaced the group (Category:Naval battles involving the United States) with the group (Category:Naval engagements of the Iran–Iraq War involving the United States). Both categories are currently populated so I assumed that it was a minor typo type thing and added (Category:Naval battles involving the United States) back again so that both categories are now referenced in the article. If this was not satisfactory, please let me know. Thank you for contributing. Veriss Veriss (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see what you mean and that you fixed it. Looks good to me. Veriss (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

New page "Tamils released from detention" for review edit

Hi I have created a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sixth6sense, could you please review it and guide me. Will Wikipedia accept this page? thanks Sixth6sense (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sixth6sense (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Reform War edit

Hi... I saw that you put the template related to wars the U.S. was involved in on the Reform War page. The U.S. was not involved in the this War. It was purely a civil war between Liberals and Conservatives. Thelmadatter (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Air engagements of the Gulf War edit

Hey, thanks for the comments on my page Air engagements of the Gulf War. Did my best to try and find all I could, I'm still finding more, it just gets more and more interesting. Skuzbucket (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back edit

long time no see. I am glad that you liked my Polar Bear Expedition monument picture enough to enlarge it. It's quite a monster. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:Battle of Bias Bay 1849.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle of Bias Bay 1849.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 17:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC).Reply

Possibly unfree File:Bahia Incident.JPG edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bahia Incident.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Vietnam War battles in 1950s edit

The Vietnam War is considered to start in 1955. But look at the Template:Campaignbox Vietnam War, we only have articles about the battles that occured only from 1960 or 61 onward. I hope we can find more information and references to write more articles about the military actions of war from 1955 to 1961. By the way, should we add North Vietnamese invasion of Laos to the template? Because this event was part of the Laotian Civil War, and this war was also part of the Vietnam War. 207.233.71.165 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes I think the invasion of Laos should be added to the Vietnam War template. It was part of the war. Also, I have been under the impression for some time that the Vietnam War began in 1959 when the North declared war on the South. (I could be wrong though the Vietnam War is not my area of expertise.) Maybe in Vietnam they consider the war to have begun in 1955 I don't know but either way you are right more info should be brought to wiki about the early years of the conflict. I don't do much work to the vietnam War articles though, there's way too many vandals to keep up with. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I will add a link for the invasion to the template, if it hasn't been done already.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

November 2010 edit

  Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Please make sure you don't mark anything minor anymore unless it is genuinely minor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

LAST CHANCE edit

Talk to me. Are you going to stop using the Minor edit box? Are you going to communicate on your talk page. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've seen your comment on my talk page and I see you've cut down marking edits as Minor. I also note that you did reply above to someone, something I'd missed. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:OWN edit

Hi. I suggest that you might want to review this Wikipedia policy. Editors do not and can not own the pages they work on, even if they have created them and are the principal contributor to the page. That being the case, an edit summary such as this one, in which you wrote "There is NO reson why the italics are unneccessary, dozens of other pages on wiki have italicized words in the caption sections. Every page I write will have them, including this one," is antithetical to Wikipedia policy. Every article on Wikipedia, including the ones you feel responsible for, is subject to the editing of other users, and you cannot determine, on your own, what will and will not appear in that article.

I fully understand that you feel as if these articles your "babies", and I have written (see here) that Wikipedia needs to recognize that principle author/contributors, who spend considerable time researching, writing and maintaining articles, are going to feel a strong connection to them. I have suggested that this stewardship of articles needs to be officially acknowleged in some way in Wikipedia policy, but even if that was to ever come about, it still wouldn't mean that principal authors/contributors would ever be in a position of controlling the articles to the extent of having a permanent veto over changes -- especially when those changes are in line with manual of style guidelines.

I respect your work, and have no intention of hindering it, but you really must step back a little and recognize that others are not out to harm your articles, that they have their best interests at heart. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No matter what you say, I will not abandon my personal standards for wiki, I have tried hard fo a long time to be consistent (in terms of style) with every article I make or edit. It has also taken a long time to create this standard which I happily can say is now being used by other wiki users. That is why I will continue to add italics to every picture I am working with. I do not feel, because I wrote a page, that I have the power to "veto" anybody elses work. However, when it comes to you reverting my edits on that article since the very minute I created it, I will not exercise toleration. I am fully aware that you are not trying to harm the article I created but I can't help but think that since I created it, you have been the watch dog for it and have reworked every edit I have done to it since the beginning. Leave the italics and this matter will end. There is absolutely no reason why italics are inappropriate and as I wrote before, many other pages on wiki (as well as in books and elsewhere on the interenet) use italics for the captions of pictures. Thats all I can say, if they are removed I will add them again. I am not trying to be a dick I just will not abandon by style for anyones personal feelings.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
You might want to review WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND as well. Such a combatative and confrontational attitude as you've shown in your reply is hardly conducive to what is supposed to be a collegial and cooperative project. Please don't make me regret that I spoke favorably in your recent SPI about your value to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Go ahead and regret, I wish this all could be forgotten about. Lets move on, don't remove the italics and this will be done. There is nothing more to say.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Moved from my talk page for continuity of discussion. Beyond My KenReply
You do recall, I hope, that back in July when we first had a conflict, I attempted to apologize to you, and 19 minutes later you retired that account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Actually no, after I stopped using that user name I never went back to the discussion page. As a man of honor, you have apologized and I will happily do the same. I try and avoid conflict whenever possible on wiki but if that means intering with a style of minor consistencies that I have tryed hard to maintain than I must make a stand. When it comes to the italics I just don't see why they cannot be used the way I have used them. Forgive me for this entire episode. It certainly has not been something I have ever been joyous about and I have never had a contest over such a petty thing. Perhaps you will think better of me some day and I am sorry this whole conflict has come to where it has. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I very much appreciate that. As I mentioned above, I'm not really interested in conflicts with other editors, so I had already taken the "Border Wars" article off my watchlist to avoid any future problems between us. I still think that it's best not to use italics for captions for a number of reasons, among which are that italicized text is somewhat more difficult to read, and since italics are used for titles and foreigh expressions, if you have to use those in an italicized caption, it means you get that awkward situation where titles etc. are un-italicized, which I never particularly liked. On the other hand, I know what it's like to have made a considered decision about what looks best, and have someone overturn it on the basis that "the Manual of Style says so" -- which is why I try not to do things just because, but instead because I honestly think the change improves the article. In any event, I'll withdraw from that article, and will probably come across one of your other articles by happenstance alone, as they're somewhat off the general subject matter I browse. If we do meet up again, I hope it will be a happy and congenial contact.

My sincere thanks once again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Two comments moved here from my talk page, to keep the discussion, which is, I believe, happily concluded, together. Beyond My KenReply

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Battle of Veracruz (disambiguation). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Battle of Veracruz. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Battle of Veracruz - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ESMcL 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:United States intervention in Latin America edit

Hi, I have removed your insertion today of the template in Bay of Pigs Invasion, because it duplicated one already there, and in the location below the infobox it was screwing up the appearance. I hope you agree with my action.PeterWD (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Action of 12 October 1950 edit

  Hello! Your submission of Action of 12 October 1950 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! The Interior(Talk) 23:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Silence. Your article was nominated to appear on the main page by another editor. It is now on the DYK Suggestions page (see link above), listed under "Articles created/expanded on November 12" heading. It is a good article, and can make it to the main page, if the listed concerns are dealt with. I've also notified the user who nominated it, either of you are welcome to comment at the entry. My main concern was that the "war crime" committed by the North Korean Army needs a citation stating that it was a war crime before we can use that phrase in the "hook". Hope you're having a good day, The Interior(Talk) 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't feel it needs to be removed, just needs a specific ref. "War crimes" can raise a lot of hackles (though I doubt too many North Koreans have access to WP!). If you can think of another catchy one-line "hook" to describe what's covered in your piece, you should suggest it over at the nominations page. Keep up the good work in article creation! The Interior(Talk) 01:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see and I will do my best, I think I have a good alternative for the phrase "war crime", why not "incident", we can leave the reader to see past the white wash.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sure, drop a suggestion at the nom page. Just a note, I've left a rename request on the article's Talk page, maybe you could comment/make the change. The Interior(Talk) 01:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Action of 12 October 1950 edit

Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Battle of Pusan edit

Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The template above is a token of appreciation for your work on writing or expanding an article which was featured on the main page of wikipedia, an award if you wish. It keeps a record of this event, together with the "hook" - the linking phrase between the main page and your article. Also, "quick check" link allows you to see how many people viewed your article on the DYK day. You don't have to reply to such messages. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Action of 6 October 1944 edit

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 edit

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actions of 5/6 May 1945 edit

What the fuck are you playing at?
Where did you get the idea that taking an article about one thing, re-writing it to be about something else, then moving it to a new title, was a reasonable, or even sensible, thing to do?
I’ve moved it back; the discussion is here. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, now you are pursuing a move war! I have referred this here. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

An olive branch edit

Hello
There hasn’t been a lot of response to the request for comment on this; I would like to resolve this as an alternative to going back to edit-warring in January, if you are willing.
If you want an article about the Point Judith action, I’ve no objection to that; the account in the 5/6 May article was only meant to be a summary. If you want we can always put an extended account at Battle of Point Judith and a main article link at 5/6 May.
If you object to the notion of an article on the USN’s last actions as such, please say so and what you don’t like about it.
If your objection is to the format, or content, or whatever of the 5/6 article itself, please say that, and how you think it could be improved.
I’m not altogether clear what it is you want.
I will look out for a reply, here or on my talk page. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

and again edit

To try and resolve this, I’ve moved the Point Judith information to here. If you have information to expand it, fine; otherwise I can do it. I’ve also clarified the 5/6 May:last actions... page. If you wish to continue the argument, fine; this is just a proposal to clear the log-jam. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this, I’m pretty sure it isn’t me that’s missing the point here, but we’ll see what the discussion throws up.
Also, if you want your merge proposal to be taken seriously, I suggest you tag the other article you want merging, and put a reason on the talk page you’ve linked to (per WP:Merge#Proposing a merger) so there'll be something to discuss. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Seeing as we argued over this last month, it’s only right that I should give you a heads up on it. The talk page attracted a suggestion which made sense, so I’ve acted on it. I've also expanded the Point Judith article. If you are unhappy about this, please say so. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Blockade of Wonsan edit

  Hello! I reviewed the articleBlockade of Wonsan at the Did You Know nominations page and I rated it No problems, ready for DYK. I did not want to hold up the nomination with minor details or my personal preferences but I think the article would be stronger if there were a few more cites from new sources, simply because it appears right now too much like it is relying very very heavily on one source (history.navy.mil). I would just go to google and find a few more reasonable sources that mentions the blockade, then insert a cite for them into the article - so we know that sources other than the navy itself think this is noteworthy. Also, you have to be VERY interested in this topic to read every detail in the sections 'Escalation of War' and 'Height of Fighting', are you sure they aren't too long? (I'm thinking edited to about half their current size or less would be ideal). These are just my personal opinions, of course! Great pictures! Overall, a fine article. (I also put this notice on the editor/admin who nominated your article User talk:TexasAndroid.Leidseplein (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Blockade of Wonsan article is now in holding for Did You Know. It'll likely appear on the Main Page some time in the next 24 to 48 hours. Congratulations! :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Blockade of Wonsan edit

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Odessa (1914) edit

You created the article on the Battle of Odessa (1914). Please can you check your sources. The claim that the Turkish fleet entered the Black Sea on 27 October 1914 with three battlecruisers is impossible - they only had one battlecruisers - though they had a collection of old battleships some from the 1860s-70s and two from the early 1890s.

It would improve the article a lot if you would add some citations. A citation is a footnote saying which page number of which book a piece of information came from. Citations should be formatted as follows:

<ref name=Reed55>Reed, Edward ''The War in the Black Sea 1914-18'', p59.</ref>

If you want to cite the same page twice in the article, you put the second citation in as follows:

<ref name=Reed55/>

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, I must have read something wrong. Yes I do realize that the Ottomans had only one battlecruiser, which came from the Germans, so I don't know why I would have wrote that they had three. It was a long time ago when I created that little article, before I figured out how to add citations. If you have a source please change the article yourself, I'll see if I still have information about my sources around here. Thanks for letting me know.

Overlinking edit

Hi, I've just removed quite a few of the links you've added to Bombardment of Cherbourg as well as some of the links in Action of 24 July 1945. There's no need to red link the names of relatively junior officers who almost certainly aren't notable or divide up the names of navies to separate links to what country' they're from and the navy. Also, were you planning to add links to the Action of 24 July 1945 article from the articles on the ships involved? At the moment it's effectively an orphan. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why are you re-adding the over-linking without so much as an edit summary? (eg [1]). Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its all part of a standard for creating/editing articles I have used for quite a long time now without any trouble until now so I don't know what the problem is. An article like the Action of 24 July 1945 and the Bombardment of Cherbourg can and certainly and will be expanded in the future so haveing all the appropriate links now is to far out there is it? I do like to limit the links in the text of the articles I edit by not linking the same word more than once. I would appreciate if you would not revert my edits, especially to an article I just created a few hours ago. Oh yeah, as for the Atlantic campaign, please do not revert my edits to that, any engagement involving naval forces in the Atlantic is part of the Atlantic Campaign (Battle of the Atlantic) and the allied naval bombardment of Cherbourg was certainly part of it. thank you--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that the links to the navies are not useful and no-one is ever going to create articles on obscure junior officers so the redlinks are unhelpful. What sources state that the Bombardment of Cherbourg was part of the Atlantic Campaign? - all the sources I've seen place this operation firmly in the context of the Normandy Campaign. As I think that you should also take the time to review WP:OWN. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply


What sources state that the Bombardment of Cherbourg was part of the Atlantic Campaign.

The fact that the warships were from the Atlantic Fleet and operating in the Atlantic Ocean makes the Cherbourg bombardment part of the Atlantic Campaign, it is part of the the Normandy Campaign also, obviously since it was a naval operation in support of ground forces. As for the junior offiers, even George Washington was a junior officer at some point. Maybe their careers are notable enough for them to have their own page but who knows. I can certainly understand why the four Japs who died in the Action of 24 July 1945 dont need to be links but as for Commander Newcomb, he recieved a Silver Star so he is not exactly un notable. If you look at almost every other warfare article on wiki, the names of officers, and even enlisted men, are linked. Rank should have no part in why a name gets linked.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should also mention that the German batterries engaged in the Cherbourg Bombardment were part of Hitler's Atlantic Wall.
Please see WP:MILPEOPLE for guidance on the types of military people who are considered notable - being awarded the silver star is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for someone to meet the relevant notability criteria (WP:BIO). I take it that you have no references which support your position on the Bombardment of Cherbourg? - those appear to be your personal views. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you try reading the Battle of the Atlantic/Atlantic Campaign article, if you knew what the so called battle was, you would know that it was not really a battle, its just a phrase to describe all of the naval operations to take place in the Atlantic during the war. It think we can both agree that Cherbourg is on the Atlantic Coast, and that the warships which bombarded the city, were not in Hawaii when they fired their guns. Reference or not, the bombardment was still part of the Atlantic theater of operations. Operation Overlord was part of the Atlantic Campaign and because the bombardment was part of Overlord, thats another reason why it is considered part of the Atlantic Campaign.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Again, what source supports that position? - without a reference, it's just your personal views. I have read the sources regarding this article BTW (along with many books on the Battle of the Atlantic and Normandy invasion) so there's no reason to talk down to me like this. The American official history by Samuel E. Morison makes it clear that the purpose of the bombardment of Cherbourg was to support the US Army's attack on the city (pages 196 to 197) and the British official history by Stephen Roskill states that the bombardment was requested by the US Army to "sychronise with the final attack" on the city (page 69). As such, this was a tactical operation conducted as part of the Normandy Campaign, and had nothing to do with the Battle of the Atlantic or control of the Atlantic more generally. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi, As this is still unreferenced I've removed Operation Overlord and the Bombardment of Cherbourg from the campaign box. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I was ignoring you, hahaha

User name edit

Your username is funny, but the code messes up some displays. I've started a thread about it at WP:RFCN#$1LENCE D00600D. It's no reflection on your editing.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That is funny :)
Apparently I'm the only who got a strange result, so I've closed the thread. Carry on.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I get the same (or a similar) problem in IE8 and Google Chrome, but not when I am logged out. I think the problem might be with one of the scripts we are using. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Excellent Work edit

I just noticed the Johanna Expedition article you created and im rather impressed. I previously had thought to write an article on it but could never find more than a few sentences on it in any publication. Job well done!XavierGreen (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Better source request for Image:USS Newport News 1972.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading Image:USS Newport News 1972.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Baltimore Crisis edit

Hi, Have you got any ideas for sources for the "18 wounded" ? The present source states 17 wounded (5 seriously). John5Russell3Finley (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Discussion you may wish to participate in edit

Hello, a notification I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Notability of the Battle off Diamond Shoals concerning the discussion I started on the notability of that battle on its talk page (which you should comment on rather than just remove the notability template from the article) has turned into a broader discussion of these types of articles and the Navboxes you've created to link them. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

(copied from my talk page) Theres nothing to discuss. Very few surface battles occurred between US and German forces during the war, especially in 1942 and right off the American coast, the Diamond Shoals action was one of them and I felt and still feel is is a notable event. You can delete it if you want but theres a good chance I will just recreate the page as it is one of the more direct engagements in the North American Theater, a topic which I have worked on for a long time. There are many articles on wiki for engagements that were significantly less climactic as the Diamond Shoals action. I am not saying it was a great or major battle but if the Battle of Point Judith has an article, so should this.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've just merged the article into USS YP-389 per the views of editors who commented at Talk:Battle off Diamond Shoals. Recreating an article when theres a consensus from other editors that the event it covers isn't notable enough for a standalone article is a good way to get blocked for disruptive editing. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Decatur's Squadron edit

Saw and agree with your comment on the Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War talk page and thought you might be interested to know that I have nominated that article for speedy deletion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, it is not needed.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

campaign navbox names edit

I've changed the piped link for "Campaignbox North American theatre of World War I" because I don't think it fits with the manual of style on piped links. The longer version gives a clearer view of what the link is about, both in terms of the scope of the content and the time frame. I've not found anything that suggests there was a North American theatre of war in WWI - as opposed to a Atltantic Ocean theatre - either. Perhaps there needs to be an article for North American during World War I of which the attacks would be a logical sub-article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

SMS Mowe, etc edit

There is a discussion about a couple of articles you wrote at Talk:SMS Möwe#Merging, if you wish to comment. Do you remember what sources you used for the two “Action of…” articles in question? It would be useful to know. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:CSSHunleyAttackingUSSHousatonic lagman.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CSSHunleyAttackingUSSHousatonic lagman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:CommodoreJoshuaBarneyRembski1812.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CommodoreJoshuaBarneyRembski1812.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:USS St. Lawrence vs Petrel.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USS St. Lawrence vs Petrel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. 11:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

File permission problem with File:Somali pirates in Mumbai.jpg edit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Somali pirates in Mumbai.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 13:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:Decatur & HMS Dominica, 1812.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Decatur & HMS Dominica, 1812.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Battle of Kororareka edit

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nuku Hiva Campaign edit

Calmer Waters 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cliff dwellings edit

I saw you created Template:Cliff dwellings. You might be interested in the article I've created at List of dwellings of Pueblo peoples, and the categorization I'm doing at Category:Puebloan architecture. Just FYI. • Freechildtalk 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Callao Affair edit

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Battle of La Flor edit

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Battle of Las Cruces (1928) edit

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Warship types of the 19th and 20th centuries edit

Yes, well done. That was a useful expansion you made to that template. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I just hope I'm not driving anybody crazy by making so many edits.

Kaibokan edit

Hi, I've just moved this article back to Kaibokan. While the word itself obviously isn't of English-language origins, it is the common English-language name for this type of ship. 'Escort ship' is a generic term that's not specific to any type of vessel. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Battle of Brazos Santiago edit

Please do not get into a revert war. You were bold and moved the article. I reverted you. The next step is discussion, not moving it again. Battle of Brazos Santiago is not a real name - it is not used widely be the sources. It was agreed at the AFD for this article that it wasn't a good name. Instead, the article was changed to a name that reflected WP standards for naval engagements. Please move it back. Karanacs (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is another reminder to please discuss controversial changes on talk pages. You are pushing your view of the Texas naval skirmishes with zero scholarly or secondary sources to back it up and are continuing to make these edits after having been reverted and pointed to scholarly sources. Karanacs (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've replied to you on my talk. Please revert your changes now or I will report you for edit warring. There is not consensus for you to make these controversial changes. We can continue discussion, we can open an RFC, whatever, but you're breaking policy by continuing to change the template and names when informed that these were controversial. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I realized that you are the same editor who started this in 2010. The fact that you didn't discuss after knowing it was controversial then disturbed me, so I went ahead and filed the edit warring report here [2] Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply


I've removed your changes to the campaignbox and put them on the talk page. Please use the talk page here to discuss and do not make these controversial changes again without that discussion. This campaignbox has existed for years and you seem to be the only one who wants these teeny naval skirmishes included in it. Please discuss the reasons behind that on the template talk page before making this controversial change again. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notification of WP:AN/EW report edit

 

Hello $1LENCE D00600D,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 15:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)Reply

DYK Shinyo Maru Incident edit

I wanted to add, that in reviewing your DYK nomination, your reference for the DYK claim is not entirely proper--you need to have an inline reference for the specific fact in the DYK, and it can't just be at the end of the paragraph. So the claim you make could be supported by your off-line reference, but that still would not be enough. If I missed it in the inline reference, I would apologize, but that note still needs to be right next to the fact in the article. I hope that my suggestion for an alternative works for you, because I appreciated the article itself very much and hope that it gets the DYK that it deserves. Good luck! Alawa (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

My humble apologies edit

I didn't mean to mark your post, that was a mouse click error. I'm sorry for that, and I'll make sure I don't accidently click something I shouldn't. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Owens Valley War edit

I see that you have grouped the Bear River Massacre article together with the Owens Valley War. Having read many scholarly papers on the topic of the Bear River Massacre, I have never seen this association come up before or even mentioned, so it is a bit interesting that you have brought it up in the first place.

I would like to know what you are using for sources to assert this particular grouping of battles against the American Indians, and what other notable historians are also suggesting this grouping is valid. Other than the fact that all of these military actions happened during the period of the Civil War and involved units of the "Department of the Pacific", I'm not entirely certain that there any sort of correlation. It seems like a potential POV issue too where a subtle assertion that there was an organized effort on the part of the U.S. Army to exterminate American Indians during the Civil War in the American west. I see these more as isolated incidents against very different groups of people.

I'm willing to be proven wrong on this point, but I'm skeptical at the moment. Please find a source for this information! --Robert Horning (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This change is flat wrong the Owens Valley Indian War had nothing to do with Connors campaign against the Shoshone and the Bear River Massacre in Idaho or the Snake War. I regard the change to Owens Valley War and cobbling it with the Bear River Massacre as a speices of vandalism. Leave my article Owens Valley Indian War alone for me to finish. It is obvious you havent even read the cited arcticle. Asiaticus (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your move of Dakota War of 1862 to Dakota War (1862–1865) edit

Please note that I have opened a discussion at Talk:Dakota War (1862–1865) in the section "Article title should be moved back to Dakota War of 1862" seeking consensus as to whether the former title is a more appropriate one for the article. Your input will be very welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding reeded 10 yen coins... edit

Sorry for the late response but if you are still interested: You posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:10_yen_coin that you had some reeded 10 yen coins but couldn't find a date on them. I have one of these and the date is indeed printed but it is in kanji, for example the reeded coin I have says 昭和二十六年 which means Showa 26 or 1951. If you want to know the year check the number against this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_numbers) then just check it against this (http://www.meijigakuin.ac.jp/~watson/ref/mtsh.html). Hope that helps! Jyuichi (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Crossposted from Karanacs talk page edit

As I can't tell if you actually bother to read anything I've written, posting this in places I hope you look;

Please don't shout. I have provided reasons why those should not be inclued, backed by reliable sources, on both my talk page and the talk page of the template. I have also opened an RfC on this issue. So far, there have been several comments, and ALL say that the naval skirmishes should not be included in a Texas Revolution template. Unless the consensus changes over the next week or so (and I doubt that it will), then the naval skirmishes should no tbe included. Your continued insistence on adding them - or creating a fork - combined with your refusal to actually discuss the reasons I've provided (all I've heard from you is essentially "I think this is right" - no RS!!) is disruptive. Continued efforts on your part to ignore consensus will result in you being dragged to ANI. I'm tired of this nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you edit

just did some category work at John Davidson (general) If the article - before the category section includes this: DEFAULTSORT:Davidson, John but within these brackets {{...}} then it will automatically have him come out as "Dividson" on the catgory page, so there is no need to go the "John Davidson (General)|Davidson" route. I just learned this trick myself and feel good about passing it on to you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sycamore Canyon foto edit

Hi, the photo you asked about is definitely from the northern Arizona redrock canyon, not the one in southern AZ. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Templates edit

Hi. Please be careful when you're working with templates, especially ones in high visibility articles. Because you put a speedy deletion request inside a template that was in use, the American Civil War article had a "Speedy delete!" notice at the top of it. I figured out where it was from (eventually); it puzzled and alarmed some other editors in the mean time! For future reference, it would be best to remove the templates from any articles including them before putting a speedy deletion notice on them. Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
you rock! :) Doomboy7 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply


Survey for new page patrollers edit

 

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello $1LENCE D00600D! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other then to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC).Reply

First Battle of Sacket's Harbor edit

Hey there $1lence, came across the First Battle of Sacket's Harbor page and noticed that you were/are the main contributor, once under the name of 'Az81964444', (I have another username also, no implication intended) ) but that the article wasn't cited. Not even a reference section. Nice write up, but you might want to include some references. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

-

License tagging for File:Black Seminole Scouts 1889.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading File:Black Seminole Scouts 1889.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Charles Gatewood edit

Thanks for the help!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification edit

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Brite Ranch Raid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Texas Rangers

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

A cookie for you! edit

  You've made some great contributions. Thanks for being a high-rated user on the active users list! :) andy4789 · (talk? contribs?) 23:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Campaignbox White River War edit

 

A tag has been placed on Template:Campaignbox White River War requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A kitten for you! edit

 

enjoyed your coverage of the Cat-arino Garza War.

Jamelchior (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification edit

Hi. When you recently edited Sheep Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Posey War edit

I just came across this article. I came across it from a reference in Why do language die. I had absolutely no idea this skirmish took place. I also just saw you expanded the Utah Black Hawk war. Very good work. When I come across the umpteenth footballer article created (81 out of 107 new living biographies yesterday), I'll have to remember your work. Thank You. Bgwhite (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification edit

Hi. When you recently edited Sheepshooter's War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification edit

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jarbidge Stage Robbery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Saloon, Native American and District Judge
Deep Creek Murders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Prospector and Deep Creek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification edit

Hi. When you recently edited Ned Christie's War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sentry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification edit

Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Bear Valley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Homestead and William Scott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for March 8 edit

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Augustine Chacon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Saloon and Fort Apache
John Horton Slaughter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Texas Ranger and Native Americans

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for March 15 edit

Hi. When you recently edited San Bernardino Ranch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Utah War edit

 Template:Campaignbox Utah War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dave (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for March 16 edit

Hi. When you recently edited San Bernardino Ranch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for April 10 edit

Hi. When you recently edited Canyon Diablo Shootout, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saloon and Lawmen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for April 17 edit

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of La Ebonal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Texas Rangers, Native American and District Judge
Deep Creek Murders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Taxi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

File copyright problem with File:50 caliber bullet headstamp 1943.jpg edit

 

Thank you for uploading File:50 caliber bullet headstamp 1943.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for April 26 edit

Hi. When you recently edited Aztec Land & Cattle Company (1884–1902), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


Battle of Veracruz (1838) edit

Hi, I saw that you contributed to this article in 2010. I'm currently working on the French version and I wondered if you remembered where did you find the info on the Mexican troops (especially the "3,229 men"...)? Thanks for your help. NicoScPo (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bisbee Massacre edit

Template:Did you know nominations/Bisbee Massacre has some issues. Can you please address these on the template? Thank you. Maile66 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for June 28 edit

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Power's Cabin Shootout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Homestead, Manhunt, Rattlesnake Canyon and Lawmen
Battle of Stone Corral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Homestead and Manhunt
Boot Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Prickly pear
Edward Landers Drew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lawman
Klondyke, Arizona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Church
Western saloon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Prospector

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for July 5 edit

Hi. When you recently edited Billy Stiles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lawman and John Slaughter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Mexican-American Wars edit

I reverted the addition of "Mexican-American wars" placed in the info box of Texas Revolution article, as the US was not involved in that conflict.--cregil (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please participate in the discussion now open on the Talk:Texas Revolution page. Thank you.--cregil (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Wyoming edit

Since you are the creator and essentially the only contributor to Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Wyoming and its talk page, you should be able to request that it be speedily deleted by inserting {{db-self}} at the very top of the template. I removed the transclusion from Nez Perce Wars, so you should be able to request the template's deletion. Mojoworker (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Bisbee Massacre edit

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Better source request for File:US Army Archangel 1918.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading File:US Army Archangel 1918.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talkedits) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for August 28 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baxter's Curve Train Robbery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Infernal machine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for September 11 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Davy Crockett (outlaw), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cowtown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for September 18 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Tres Jacales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Ranger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for September 25 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brunckow's Cabin, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fort Buchanan, Prospector and Cabin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

File permission problem with File:Boot Hill Cemetery Bonanza Idaho.jpg edit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Boot Hill Cemetery Bonanza Idaho.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Japanese American internment template edit

Please note that your use of "internment" in the template is inaccurate. Please see the talk page for the template for details. Thank you. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

How about we continue this discussion over on the template's talk page so that we don't have to keep switching from each other's talk pages? :-) I've responded there. Thanks. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for October 2 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arizona during World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Washington, West Coast, Fighter and Sky Harbor Airport

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for November 6 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States home front during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for November 15 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Native Americans and World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pawnee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your reverts edit

So, you reverted my military infoboxes in some o the articles which I wrote suchas Hispanic Americans in World War II. To tell you the truth I don't mind at all, I'm fine with it. One of the things that I can appreciate about you is that you like to point out the often forgotten facts of history. I can relate to that. My hat off to you, keep on doing the great job that you are doing here. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Fort Bowyer edit

Hello,

You added the following text to the article on 23 October 2009:

'Lambert landed ...... four 18-pounders, two 8-inch howitzers, two 6-pounder rockets, three 5 1/2-inch and two 4.4-inch mortars, and a hundred 12-pounder rockets for a siege.'

Please can you advise as to the source of this information. I'm thinking I would enjoy reading the rest of the document :-) Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for November 22 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Escape from Fort Stanton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luxury liner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for November 29 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

New Mexico during World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fighter, Doctor and Glider
Great Papago Escape (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Captain and Salt River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for December 6 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lordsburg Killings, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Department of Justice and Barrack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wall of Honor edit

Once in awhile, I am lucky enough to come across and interact with some Wikipedians who are not only well mannered, but who makes interacting a pleasure. You are one of those people, therefore it is with great pleasure that I induct you into the "Wall of Honor". Tony the Marine (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

 
Wall of Honor

$1LENCE D00600D
2012

Disambiguation link notification for December 14 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Kiebitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for January 16 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2 francs (World War II Belgian coin), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denomination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re:Thanks edit

You don't have to thank me. You deserve it. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for January 24 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enrique Gorostieta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atotonilco (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 obverse.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 obverse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 reverse.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Netherlands 2 1-2 cents 1941 reverse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II obverse.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II obverse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Possibly unfree File:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II reverse.jpg edit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zinc coins Netherlands 1940s World War II reverse.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for February 5 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bisbee Riot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saloon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs edit

  Thank you for your recent articles, including Battle of Bolshie Ozerki, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject assessment tags for talk pages edit

  Thank you for your recent articles, including Battle of Bolshie Ozerki. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free media (File:Longview Texas Race Riot 1919.jpg) edit

  Thanks for uploading File:Longview Texas Race Riot 1919.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for February 25 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Longview Race Riot, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Doctor, Willow Springs, Texas and Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Better source request for File:Fort Crittenden marker.jpg edit

Thanks for uploading File:Fort Crittenden marker.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Merge discussion for Capture of the Ambrose Light edit

  An article that you have been involved in editing, Capture of the Ambrose Light, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ammodramus (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for April 8 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Beleaguer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chang Chun, Anping and David Barr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Files missing description details edit

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reverted Edits on Colombia during World War II edit

Hi $ilence,
I notice you reverted two of my changes to Colombia during World War II (including renaming to "Colombia in World War II") and brought back the infobox (1) May I ask why? The name change is debatable I guess, though it is more common to have the "Country X in War Y" notation, but why bring back the infobox? No other article with the same scope uses it and as far as I can see, the only information (1939-1945) is actually wrong (or at least oversimplistic)! I'm anxious to avoid some sort of edit war here, so please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Actually, I had intended to raise the whole "Country X in War Y" thing on WP:MILHIST anyway so I guess we can wait on that.
All the best, Brigade Piron (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

June 2013 edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cuba during World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for June 4 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuba during World War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Visa and Cayuga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for June 20 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Venezuela during World War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Minesweeper and Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey $1LENCE D00600D

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for August 5 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Panama during World War II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Balboa, Captain, Fascist Italy and Export-Import Bank
Panama Conference (1939) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Neutrality

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

New article edit

You were the creator of Latin America during World War II, and we also have British Empire in World War II. Maybe you should create French Indochina during World War II, with a brief summary of events in all three countries of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. ༆ (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for August 12 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latin America during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Captain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for August 31 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited El Salvador during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Populist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for December 5 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huerfano Butte (Arizona), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cupule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for December 12 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Powers Butte Wildlife Area (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Phoenix, Salt River and Cottonwood
Barrel cactus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Native Americans
Lake Mohave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kiteboarding

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Indian Mesa edit

Thank you for adding the categories to the article. I am glad that you liked it. Did you enjoy the pictures too? It is good to know that someone appreciates my work, especially since I am the subject of a Wiki-hounder. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for January 15 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mano (stone), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for January 22 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Painted Rock Petroglyph Site (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Archaic
York County, Pennsylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Native American

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation link notification for January 29 edit

Hi. Thank yo