User talk:$1LENCE D00600D

External audio
External audio
	Jose Feliciano's "Feliz Navidad "

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
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

wp/lez

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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頭 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Cárdenas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Ken[reply]

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 Ken[reply]

Your contributed article, Battle of Veracruz (disambiguation)

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

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

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

On 22 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 12 October 1950, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a Pirate was hit during the Action of 12 October 1950? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Pusan

On 22 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Pusan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the sinking of a North Korean troop ship in the Battle of Pusan on the first day of the Korean War is credited with preventing the fall of the South Korean port city of Pusan? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

On 29 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 6 October 1944, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kriegsmarine attributed the sinking of U-168 in the Java Sea to the presence of the crew's Indonesian girlfriends on board for a party? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

December 2010

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

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

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

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

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

On 10 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blockade of Wonsan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Blockade of Wonsan in the Korean War was the longest naval blockade in modern history, lasting 861 days? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Battle of Odessa (1914)

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:

--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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.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

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

On 27 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kororareka, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Māori warriors captured Russell, New Zealand, in the 1845 Battle of Kororareka from the British, who were then evacuated by an American ship? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

DYK for Nuku Hiva Campaign

On 28 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nuku Hiva Campaign, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the US fought Polynesian warriors in the South Pacific Nuku Hiva Campaign during the War of 1812, even though that war was against the British? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff dwellings

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

On 9 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Callao Affair, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a Spanish fort attacked the US schooner Rampart and USS Macedonian (pictured) on two separate days in the Callao Affair during the Peruvian War of Independence even though the US was neutral in the war? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of La Flor

On 11 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of La Flor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. commanders at the Battle of La Flor and Battle of Las Cruces were each awarded the Navy Cross for their actions against the Sandinistas in the Banana Wars? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Las Cruces (1928)

On 11 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Las Cruces (1928), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. commanders at the Battle of La Flor and Battle of Las Cruces were each awarded the Navy Cross for their actions against the Sandinistas in the Banana Wars? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warship types of the 19th and 20th centuries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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...

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

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

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

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

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!

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

Survey for new page patrollers

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification

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!

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

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!

enjoyed your coverage of the Cat-arino Garza War.

Jamelchior (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 8 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bisbee Massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that for the 1884 hanging of five Bisbee Massacre murderers in Tombstone, Arizona, invitations were sent out by the sheriff, and tickets were sold for grandstand seating? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bisbee Massacre. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talk•edits) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

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

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

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

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

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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.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

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

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

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

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

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]

I love what you did to the infoboxes "engagements". I wondering, if you see it fit, if you could do the same for two other articles which I created: Puerto Ricans in World War I and Puerto Ricans in the Vietnam War? Tony the Marine (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bowyer

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

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

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

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

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]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castle Hot Springs (Arizona), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hedgehog cactus and South Pacific (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, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colson–Scott Tragedy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Commodore, Southern Railway and Eastern State Hospital (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) 08:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Stanton Arizona Circa 1969.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Stanton Arizona Circa 1969.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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}} 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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chuck Stanton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Amalgamation and Prickly pear (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) 08:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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.

Empire Ranch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to San Pedro River

Los Robles Archaeological District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Salt River

Old Yuma Mine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sales tax token, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington, Cardboard and Georgia (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) 08:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio removed

Your addition to Tucson Mountains has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. :

I've removed a copyvio from Tucson Mountains. Please don't copy and paste text from sources into Wikipedia articles. Vsmith (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is more - copyright violations in your edits to Sasco, Arizona have resulted in your additions there being reverted. Vsmith (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted a page you created: Sales tax token as it was basically a copyright violation. Content was copied from this website. Vsmith (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your questions on my talk. Vsmith (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silver Bell, Arizona, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cobbler, Public school and Desperado (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) 09:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ciénega Creek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cottonwood and Alligator lizard (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) 08:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arizona pioneers

What, if any, criteria are you using to determine who/what belongs in this category? A good proportion of the individuals you have been adding do not obviously meet the definition of a pioneer (One who goes before, as into the wilderness, preparing the way for others to follow.) while you seem to be missing city/town founders such as Hugo Oconór, William Augustus Hancock, and Dick Wick Hall. --Allen3 ^talk 01:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Category talk:Arizona pioneers

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Arizona pioneers. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmie Mercer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Desperado and Lawman (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) 08:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker County Seat War

I wanted to congratulate you on a job well done on the article for the Tucker County Seat War. I hope you'll consider nominating this article for DYK--It would be a perfect addition! -- Caponer (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

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.

Battle of Cimarron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Raid, Cowtown and Lawmen

Santa Cruz Catholic Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Holy Cross

Santa Cruz River (Arizona) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Holy Cross

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The Epic Barnstar
		$1LENCE D00600D, I hereby award you The Epic Barnstar for your extraordinary contributions illustrating various county seat wars, especially the Tucker County Seat War in the U.S. state of West Virginia! Thank you for taking the time to shed light on a lesser known important chapter of American history! -- Caponer (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tucker County Seat War

On 16 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tucker County Seat War, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during the Tucker County Seat War in 1893, over 200 armed men seized Tucker County, West Virginia's court records and courthouse bell from St. George and transferred the county seat to Parsons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tucker County Seat War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

slakr^\ talk / 08:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Castle Hot Springs (Arizona)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Castle Hot Springs (Arizona), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_Castle_Hot.html, http://www.peoriaaz.gov/uploadedFiles/NewPeoriaAZ/About_Peoria/Sonoran_Preservation_Program/Chapter4_HistoricCulturalResources.pdf, and probably others, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Castle Hot Springs (Arizona) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Castle Hot Springs (Arizona), in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Castle Hot Springs (Arizona) with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Castle Hot Springs (Arizona). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Castle Hot Springs (Arizona) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, $1LENCE D00600D. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your conduct here, combined with the many copyright issues we are finding with you at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D, tells me that you don't understand the copyright procedures on this site. As a result, I have blocked you until you can confirm that you do in fact understand our policies. Wizardman 02:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the attitude you showed in that discussion is patently unacceptable. You caused these problems, you need to take responsibility for them by helping out in your CCI if you are unblocked. MER-C 04:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the copyright procedures. I am not a dumb as you make out. And I will not tolerate rude behavior. If you want me to read your comment, show some manners. I have no idea what discussion you are talking about, but if it is the one I think it is, that old man had no right to speak to me in that manner. Sometimes I am a little too lazy when it comes to writing articles. Afterall, I am not much of a writer, and thats not really my intention here on wiki anyway. My main goal on wiki is to bring some of these interesting events into the spotlight, so that others may expand upon the articles however necessary. (And more recently I have been playing around with a camera) Most of the articles I deal with involve little known historical events dating back 100 years ago, when not many people were recording the details. A lot of the time there is such a small amount of information on certain subjects availiable to me that I cant help but use the same words and sentences, otherwise you end up leaving out facts and other important parts of the story. Block me if you must. I dont like it, but at least you have heard what I have to say. Have a good night.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wizardman and MER-C, it seems that $1LENCE D00600D is not even acknowledging the seriousness of the situation w/r/t WP:Copyvio, and their repeated attempts to divert legitimate criticism by claiming (disingenuously? idk...) both here and there to have suffered "rude behavior" is troubling. Then, demanding that you "show some manners" if "you want me to read your comment" would seem not to help the situation. So my question is when an editor defiantly writes, "Block me if you must" but doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a problem and their role therein, is there any other remedial action that can be taken to influence them towards more responsible editing - or at least protect the integrity of the project? And is there anything that regular (non-admin) users can do to help? Thanks for your time. Cheers. JDanek007 ^Talk 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question: not really. Now that they are blocked, the onus is solely on $1LENCE D00600D to convince an administrator that they understands the problems with their editing. Nuking all of their edits is not appropriate at this stage. As for stuff you can do: you can examine the articles listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D for copyright problems and remove them or report them at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. MER-C 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AZ8196/Archive this user has a history of likely sockpuppet abuse, and that may contribute towards the flippant attituder ("if an account blocked, well never mind I can always open another and carry on as before") Unfortunatly it is probably necessary to check the other likely sockpuppet accounts to see if there are more copyright violations under those accounts. -- PBS (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The likely sockpuppet account is already listed (page 3). $1LENCE D00600D: I will delete all articles you created and revert all your edits if you evade this block. MER-C 02:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there??? Please exercise some patience, it is a holiday weekend! I am acknowledging that there is a problem! How can I "evade" this block? I am not some computer genius or something, I wouldn't even know where to start! I am pretty sure I have never been "Blocked" before, so I simply did not understand what exactly you need me to do about it, until now (but I guess I already knew this). Thank you for making this more clear for me, Mer-C, even if you weren't directing your comment toward me. To start, I dont even know what a sockpuppet is. I do know computer geeks like to make up slang words for everything nowadays, which just confuse the hell out of me!!! If it is what I think it is, I can assure you I only use this account. (Thanks, PBS, for the extremely rude accusations, though. That is insulting, but I dont mind!) An administrator warned be about that a long long time ago, and I am not that kind of person anyway. (My 12th b-day was a long time ago!) In case you did not fully understand my last comment, there is only so much information available to me on basically everything I am interested in creating articles for, and I am not a very good, or healthy writer, so in some cases It can be difficult to help it, without leaving out important details. Most of the time, and this you can be assured of, I do try my best to simply report on the information, rather than copy it exactly from the sources. The reason why I tend to leave so many inline citations, and often a grouping of them at the end of a paragraph, is because the paragraph is usually a mix of multiple sources of info. (I hope this all makes sense, I have never been very good at explaining things.) There really shouldn't be many articles that need any fixing. I have already fixed a few over the past few weeks. There are two or maybe three small to medium sized articles that do need some more work, though. But like I said before, organization is not one of my greatest traits, and I do this for fun (however pathetic that may sound, I really dont care). The Tucker County Seat War article is a perfect example. It is really a pretty small article that doesnt have too much text to it. Basically it briefly mentions the elections before the "march" in 1893. And even then there is not much detail to it. (I only created this article because of the neat 1893 pic I found, and of course that it is related to some other stuff I was "working" on) This is because when I created the article I only had a limited ammount of information availiable, and I did not want to leave anything out (There is only so much there to begin with!). Then you must take into account that I am not a very good writer! I'm sorry, I know the writing I do isn't so great, but in my defense I dont think anybody can complain about all the work I have done cleaning up articles so they look more presentable for readers. I have also uploaded quite a few photos recently, and have a whole lot more that I would like to upload (provided Im not booted from wiki) for several Arizona/California/Oregon related stub articles on wiki (mostly wilderness/historic site-related images). I think I have pretty much said it all! It has taken me more than a few minutes here, which is why I haven't responded sooner! It is Easter, afterall, and I have been in the Chihuahuan Desert all day long! So let me end this by saying I apologize for the poor communication on my part, and any rude behavior you may have suffered (If you know who that "Old Man" was, tell him I'm sorry too, I know he deserves it. I dont know if you know him or something, but I sure as heck dont remember who he was). I hope you all have a good Easter night, and again I apologize! And as a last remark I will say that I will most certainly be more cordial in the future. Thank you and good night.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly copying text from the internet on any subject is plagiarism and possible copyright violation (WP:COPYVIO), and you seem completely oblivious to that fact, that is why you where blocked from editing.TheMesquito (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im well aware of what you are talking about, but it has never been as bad as you say, except in a few cases where I was admittedly lazy. But like I said before, I am not the greatest writer, and if given the chance I will fix and or eliminate the problem

articles.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly understand it, the use {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} to try to convince an uninvolved admin that you understand what you did and and will actively participate at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/$1LENCE D00600D. You seem to be doing nothing of the sort, that is why the other two admins refuse to unblock you. TheMesquito (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Since trying to defend my actions was futile, just as I expected, I will end this by saying that you administrators need to find a better way of handling issues like this, instead of 1) ganging up on me 2) insulting me 3) accusing me of doing bad things like sockpuppetry (or whatever you want to call it) 4) threatening to delete dozens of articles because I didn't respond in an expected/timely manner. These sort of things are exactly why I try to avoid conversations like this, and ask that people leaving comments for me to do so politely (like a civilized human being). It seems to me like my comments were completely ignored, and instead of a better explanation, or simply a solution to the problem, I received nothing but threats and covert insults. So now that that is done, maybe you all will fully understand the last couple of sentences in my first comment regarding this issue. "Block me if you must. I don't like it, but at least you have heard what I have to say." Now you can choose to be offended by this if you want, but that was not my intention. Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part, and in my defense I will say again that I resent the accusation of plagiarism. Although I was admittedly lazy in some cases and unwilling to leave out facts/details in others, never have I stolen other peoples work and tried to pass it off as my own. I have always left plenty of references and inline citations, which show exactly where the info comes from. I dont know how I supposed to "participate" in this investigation one of you mentioned, for I am not an administrator. And about the Tucker County Seat War: I wouldn't have created it if I knew it was going to become such a big problem. I dont remember if I mentioned this in an earlier comment or not, but I really only created it because of the neat 1893 pic I found and that it is at least distantly related to some other historical events (the County Seat Wars) that occurred around that same time. And I just noticed that the "Colson-Scott tragedy" article has been nominated for deleteion. Well thats fine, it is one of the "lazy" articles I mentioned earlier. I created it for personal reasons and it turned out to be a much larger task than I had anticipated, which is why it is the way it is. I know I probably shouldn't have created it, but like I said there were personal, family reasons for doing so.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Colson–Scott Tragedy

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 Colson–Scott Tragedy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://kynghistory.ky.gov/nr/rdonlyres/08ff1b42-9273-446a-b6a1-abc0526a2bfb/0/col_colson_4th_ky_s.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Castle Hot Springs (Arizona)

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 Castle Hot Springs (Arizona) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191814/http://www.peoriaaz.gov/uploadedFiles/NewPeoriaAZ/About_Peoria/Sonoran_Preservation_Program/Chapter4_HistoricCulturalResources.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Yacht Quest 2011.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yacht Quest 2011.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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Bohemia and Moravia 10 haleru 1940 obverse.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bohemia and Moravia 10 haleru 1940 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 object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated the other similar coin photographs at the same place. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Courtland Arizona Circa 1969.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Courtland Arizona Circa 1969.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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}} 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. TLSuda (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Fairbank Station Arizona.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fairbank Station Arizona.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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}} 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. TLSuda (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz Navidad

<font=3> Wishing you a
"Feliz Navidad and a Prospero Año Nuevo"
(Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year)
Tony the Marine (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Campaignbox Woll Expedition

A tag has been placed on Template:Campaignbox Woll Expedition requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another 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 not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alcantara and Greif.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alcantara and Greif.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 10 Reichspfennig (World War II German coin) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 10 Reichspfennig (World War II German coin) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 Reichspfennig (World War II German coin) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1 koruna (World War II Bohemian and Moravian coin) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1 koruna (World War II Bohemian and Moravian coin) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 koruna (World War II Bohemian and Moravian coin) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Currency of Belgium has been nominated for discussion

Category:Currency of Belgium, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Arizona

Template:Campaignbox Indian wars and conflicts of Arizona has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Conquest of Aden

Template:Campaignbox Conquest of Aden has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Koopinator (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Merton A. Richal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merton A. Richal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merton A. Richal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mexican Indian Wars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mexican Indian Wars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican Indian Wars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mottezen (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Nukapu Conflict

Template:Campaignbox Nukapu Conflict has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Action of 13 December 1814 for deletion

I have nominated this article for deletion. Like other articles that you created, it is your recollection of what you think you read, with a nationalistic bias, and with no recourse to source-based evidence. The Action of 14 December is a bona fide occurrence, better known in the present time as the Battle of Lake Borgne. The firefight with one schooner is but one element of the engagement from December 12 through December 14 that culminated in fierce hand-to-hand fighting on the last day. You are the only person who sees the activities of December 13 as a battle in itself, as this is not recognized in any reliable source history book. I thought it wise to share this on your original account and on your sockpuppet account. Keith H99 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Action of 16 January 1916 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Action of 16 January 1916 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Vegas affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Keith H99 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Battles of the Franco-Siamese War

A tag has been placed on Category:Battles of the Franco-Siamese War indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]