User talk:Shoreranger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Shoreranger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DVD+ R/W 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Lenape[edit]

I'm reasonably sure of this edit I made, at History of New York City (prehistory-1664), but given your previous edit, I'd appreciate if you check it and tell me if I misunderstood. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems very good, though I had not noticed before there is no explanation of "Munsee" and, as used here, should be noted as the "Munsee dialect", as opposed to the Unami dialect also spoken by the Lenape. Nice work.--Shoreranger 00:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fordham question?[edit]

Hi, no offense meant, but do you work for Fordham? It seems that most of your edits are Fordham-related. Thanks, --AW 11:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

None taken. I do not work for Fordham. Just seems to be a lot to do on that article before I want to move on to too much else. Limited time and energy and all that.... Shoreranger 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah OK, thanks --AW 15:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop tagging Fordham University on articles. For alumni, the appropriate category is "Fordham University alumni" and many of the pages you have edited already listed this so your edits on those pages were redundant and unnecessary. Gdo01 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that you do good work on the Fordham page. I always watch the page (among others) and it's good to see that someone is maintaining it well. Scskowron 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Evacuation Day[edit]

Hi Shoreranger,
I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but am fairly knowledgeable about New York's history wherever it has something to do with this particular branch of the Riker family. I have made some changes to the Evacuation Day (New York) topic which I hope clarifies any problem you might have with John Van Arsdale's rank or age. The real myth regarding the raising of the flag over the battery (I have never come across the "Bowling Green" reference before but will asume that you have access to material which I do not - I believed at the time the pole was at the battery and that in 1883 that was the structure at that place), seems to be that it was raised by a boy. I strongly recommend that you read Clifton Hood's essay (which is easy to get online) and James Riker's work if you can find it (out of print, expensive to purchase and not online). Clifton Hood's social history essay is a great analysis of class relations in New York throughout the 19th century as well as being an excellent account of the events surrounding the Evacuation itself.
I'm not sure whether my changes are properly Wikified but I am sure that that will get sorted out in time
Regards
John Tierney 00:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Floyd Bennett Field[edit]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For helping highlight the role in aviation history of Floyd Bennett Field to New York City, the United States, and the world. Petercorless 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fordham article[edit]

Okay thanks for the message. I have posted my opinion on the Fordham talk article. Scskowron 19:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Good call. I would also consider Fordham to be the first Catholic college in the region, but I just included that word to be more specific. Scskowron 01:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fordham Student Publications[edit]

Thanks for catching my error on the Fordham page. I didn't read the title - I thought the section was for all Fordham publications, not just student ones. Scskowron 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hessians[edit]

Hey there. I see you replaced the Hessian component in the belligerents section of the infobox on Battle of Harlem Heights. I think that while it is technically true that the Hessians were involved, there's not much reason to separate them out from the British. There were lots of militias involved on the American side, but for this battle, we can lump them all together into the Continental Army. Perhaps if we can figure out the numbers, we can put them in the strength section (see Battle of Long Island. However, to argue your side, if you look at Battle of Fort Washington, there is Hessians in the belligerents section. Perhaps we should bring something up on the project space to standardize this? What do you think? (I'm going to post this same speech on the article talk page) Tan | 39 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton/PMA[edit]

Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate them. Unfortunately, his tactics have worked. I am exhausted. I will not however, go away. I think you're right. I just wish he would stick to the facts and above all, just be civil. I tried to flood him with kindness at first, but that only seemed to make things worse somehow. I'm afraid I lost my cool over time, so I am going to spend some time regaining it. I wish he would set aside his POV, answer direct questions, spend a little more time on his own edits, and drastically less nit-picking those of others, etc. However, sadly, none of those things seem even remotely likely. Responding to things PMA accuses you of in his passive-aggressive way is an exponential time-wasting problem--every accusation I refute brings up three more, and on, and on, and on it goes. I don't have as much time as he does. I hope the article gets new blood. If you know anyone who might be willing to make it a project, please let them know. The article needs all the help, all the new editors it can get. Anyway, thanks again. AdRem (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the Barnstar! I hadn't even noticed it! I hope you will still do some work on the article, it needs a lot of help. In any case, have a great weekend! AdRem (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC meetup[edit]

If you're in the city, you may be interested in the NYC meetups. The next one will probably b a picnic in august. Watchlist that page for information. DGG (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the picnic[edit]

Unfortunately, we never had enough time to register for a permit. I am just hoping there is less than twenty people. Yes, I hate having to handle it like this. --harej 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The King's College (New York)[edit]

I've commented at Template_talk:NYC_Colleges#King's restored, Cardozo deleted. --Aepoutre (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

You may wish to note that state is a disambiguation page. The article described these states as self-governing and independent, so I piped the link to sovereign state as this is kind of the definition of what sovereign states are. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ANPR live the adventure cover08-09.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:ANPR live the adventure cover08-09.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to United Kingdom. Thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

American Revolution Lead[edit]

hiya Shoreranger,

Would it be possible to collaborate on rewriting the lead to the American Revolution article? I'm willing to help, but I'm not completely confident about simply doing it myself...

Ω (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We should probably talk about this at Talk:American_Revolution#Lead Section Rewrite, please...
For starters, can we agree to fix the redundant sentences in the first paragraph? Ω (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A Deletion Discussion of an Irish Catholic Category[edit]

is being discussed at [1]--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Deletion by NFCC[edit]

I noticed how you recently got FordhamRams.png to comply with NFCC. The same editor who deleted that image also deleted HartfordHawks.png in the Hartford Hawks article. Would you be able to get HartfordHawks.png to comply with these regulations? I would try myself but I am clueless when it comes to images on wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. The links to the revision when it was deleted and to the image itself are below.

Thanks, Kithira (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish people[edit]

The Irish people article is being vandalized again. I'm still new to wiki editing and I don't know the proper way to revert pages to previous edits, but noticed that you made the last revert after vandalism. Just letting you know, if you want to revert it again. Thanks. 69.171.162.245 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the vote of support. Yes, editors don't always need to agree, but as long as we agree that there are certain standards to civility and fair play, then Wikipedia is a nice place to live. Chime in on Irish American when you can. Your presence alone is good support. Eastcote (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Shoreranger, agree with the tags on Irish American. Thanks.Malke2010 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Draft Riot and Irish Americans[edit]

Just to be clear, I stated my reasons on the talk page. Simply put, most of what has been added has little to do with the Irish. The part about Tammany is relevant, but the other part, with the number of Blacks killed, is not germane specifically to the Irish, since they were not the only participants in the riot. As currently written, it seems intended to portray the Irish as racists. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position. Nevertheless, you did not discuss the proposed change prior to editing, merely explained your position. No consensus was reached in advance. Shoreranger (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Granted. But, I would prefer that discussion continue before the information is readded. Either way, I am not going to revert again. I do hope that some discussion commences on the matter. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

American Revolution[edit]

I've been watching this page for a very long time and I like your edits. But a recent edit there by Rjensen seemed to change the meaning. [2] I almost reverted it, but since we are in mediation on Irish American I thought the better of it. But I wanted to say I think your edits on AR are good.Malke2010 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholics on the Frontier[edit]

Hello. I wish we were still able to edit in Irish American, but our hands are tied while the mediation goes on. Your comments on the religion of the Scotch-Irish got me to thinking about Catholicism and Anglicanism on the American Frontier. I found a couple of interesting articles.

  • I C. Walker Gollar, "Frontiers of Faith: Bringing Catholicism to the West in the Early Republic (review)" The Catholic Historical Review - Volume 95, Number 3, July 2009, pp. 636-637. Relying on documents from Catholic priests and bishops, John Dichtl argues that in the backwoods of Pennsylvania and Maryland to the far edge of Indiana, and especially in Kentucky from the 1780s through the 1820s, Catholics initially lived in harmony with their non-Catholic neighbors.
  • Thomas W. Spalding, "The Catholic Frontiers", U.S. Catholic Historian, Vol. 12, No. 4, Frontier Catholicism (Fall, 1994), pp. 1-15. The Maryland Anglo-Americans of the backwoods frontier, the French Canadians of the fur-trapping frontier, the Irish of the mining frontier, and the Germans of the Great Plains.

Hopefully when this mediation is done we can get on with more amicable debate. Those of us involved in this have all disagreed with one another sometime in the past, but never on the scale that we are encountering now with the many changes that have taken place in the article. Eastcote (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Irish American Mediation[edit]

Sorry for the delay. I have made the edit for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-27/Irish American concensus, can I get a preposal for the other page, or is this good to close? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rights of Englishmen[edit]

Members of the WP:EAR team have commented on this article and/or the pattern of editiing of its contributors. Please see: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Rights of Englishmen. --Kudpung (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bronx/The Bronx[edit]

Because you participated in a previous discussion on the subject, I'm letting you know that a discussion has started about opneing a Request for Comments concerning "Bronx" versus "The Bronx" as the article title. You can find it here Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You![edit]

Hi Shoreranger,

I saw some of your contributions on articles related to Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, you seem to know a lot about history, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture caption on Science page[edit]

Hey Shoreranger, I thought I would explain myself a little more fully here. First of all, I have reworded that "awful" figure caption. My initial intent was to back up the ideas mentioned in that section of the text; my point was that, even though scientists practice a sort of skepticism, this should not be taken to mean that scientists are not probably correct about a lot of things. For example, I had might as well have said "Though scientists who believe [that the sun revolves around the earth] admit they can never be certain, they are still very probably correct". I wonder, would you have objected to that?-Tesseract2 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I would. My objection has nothing to do with the truth of the statement, only that a caption on an image is the wrong place to convey the idea which, if addressed at all, should be addressed in the body of the article and sourced with citations. Otherwise, it comes off as awkward agenda-pushing. Shoreranger (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Shoreranger. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Generation X[edit]

Please stop changing the wording in the introduction on the Generation X page. The sources I added (and those not added yet) all use the the phrase high school graduating class, etc. That is also the terminology used when referring to Generation Y, and is thus included in the respective articles. Recent journalists refer to the Millennials and the high school Class of 2000. I am keeping the terminology in line with what is used in media as well as other generation pages. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Sorry, I didn't mean to jump on you. I don't have any issues with the term secondary, except for the fact that it is not used in the sources provided. Also, the Generation Y article page uses the term high school as well in reference to the graduating Class of 2000. Secondary school can refer to any school after primary school - including middle school and junior high. Some students in public school go to separate junior high and high schools. Also, the phrase 'finish their secondary education' can refer to someone graduating from the eighth grade (mini-graduation before junior high). However, high school refers to grades 9-12; it is more specific. The last graduating high school class, 1999, is the last of Generation X. We are trying to be consistent in the use of terminology on these pages. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You're a good writer[edit]

I like your improvements to History of New York City. Just noticing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to Give Thanks[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
To Shoreranger for the amazing amount of high-quality content you contribute. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ANPR live the adventure cover08-09.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ANPR live the adventure cover08-09.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Association of National Park Rangers[edit]

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.

A tag has been placed on Association of National Park Rangers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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. Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Good morning...I see that you reverted an edit that I made on the American AD article. Would it be possible to include an edit summary when you do that? It was a pretty minor point, but the word that you re-added seems a bit unnecessary. The robe either follows the ICC or it doesn't, right? Thanks!--dave-- 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011[edit]

As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic regalia in the United States[edit]

Hello, Shoreranger! I'd like to rectify the grammar on that caption that's attracted so much attention lately, but I'd like to confer with you first to understand, exactly and clearly, the meaning that is supposed to be conveyed. I've written up a short message for the article's talk page so any interested user can contribute ideas. I just wanted to send you this message since you seem to understand the topic well! Armadillopteryx (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rights of Englishmen[edit]

---but look now! RolandR (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gentry[edit]

Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton on slavery[edit]

Before I attempt to get you permanently banned for deliberately misrepresenting a source, care to explain why you falsified the the one about the scholarly consensus on him, the other Founders, and slavery? http://www.jstor.org/stable/1408953 ColaXtra (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reported you to an admin here. ColaXtra (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have assumed good faith, perhaps you just misread it. Apologies. ColaXtra (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The statement that currently leads the section, and the citation that is used to try and support it, are confusing in relation to each other. The paper you cite gives ample eveidence that Hamilton was not, in fact, at all ambivalent about slavery in the United States, and the opening statement of the paragraph was misleading, and set a disingenuous tone for the rest of the section. I have done a significant amount of reading on Hamilton, and there is ample evidence that - in fact - a significant amount of recent scholorship, at least, and even contemporary documentation on Hamilton (especially considering his work the the NY Manumission Society) indicates that he was not typical among his cohort because of his opposition to slavery. I will use the same citation, rephrase the statement, and put in in place in the section that does not give a false impression. Shoreranger (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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 Fordham University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heiress (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) 11:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


For you[edit]

Editor - iron star.jpg This editor is a Veteran Editor
and is entitled to display this
Iron Editor Star.


Btw, Thanks for your recent edit on the Thomas Jefferson page.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Thanks! I'm honored!! Shoreranger (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Long Island 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • outflanked by the British who attacked from the rear while the Hessians attacked up Battle Pass. ([[Lithograph]] c.1866]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tags on Protestant Ascendancy[edit]

It would have been polite to open a discussion at Talk:Protestant Ascendancy before leaving a raft of {{Morerefs}}, {{Who}}, {{Ww}}, {{Cn}}, {{When}}, {{Dubious}}, {{Or}} and {{What}}s, as you did here. I'm not saying that any of the tags were wrong, but throwing them around like confetti does nothing to improve an article. Why, for instance, should one short sentence need five tags in two clumps? Please remove at least the excess tags and open a discussion. Scolaire (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider them excessive. I'll open a discussion at your request, though. Shoreranger (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paxton Boys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scots-Irish (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) 09:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish American, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scotch-Irish and Ulster Scots (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) 08:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Generation X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hughes (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fordham seal.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fordham seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War edit[edit]

I have opened a discussion on the introduction terms at Talk:American Civil War#List of introduction ACW names., a) supporting your edit and b) suggesting an alternative inline note. Please join the discussion. I wonder if it would be best to construct a Request for Comment after a little commentary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of National Memorials of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s and 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)