User talk:MWadwell

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

==Welcome==The Imperial army asked for an armistice on 29 October, two days before 31 October, when Hungary broke their union with Austria, effectively ending the Empire (and not on 27 October as mentioned). The armistice petition -accepting all Wilson's preconditions for peace- could have never come about had the battle not taken place, thus the military defeat predates Austria-Hungary's dissolution by at least 48hs. One of the cited sources uses the term "thereafter", so I see no reasons to claim that the statement is against NPoV policy. The same for Ludendorff's quote: "In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself..." The offensive lasted until 4 November (a ceasefire had been arranged 24hs before) only because the Italian army commanders wanted to gain as much terrain as possible, but the Imperial troops had already conceded defeat by 29 October. We can discuss ad aeternum what was first, i.e. Italian victory or Habsburg collapse, but Wikipedia relies on sources, and cited sources are quite clear if not explicit on this point. Hello, MWadwell, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Woody (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality[edit]

Thankyou for your edit to List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality. I am afraid that I have had to remove Murray as he is already listed at the "subpage" List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. The main list would have become too long otherwise. Hope this explains it. Any questions can be left on my talk page. Welcome. Woody (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Poelcappelle.JPG[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Poelcappelle.JPG has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Pegasus «C¦ 03:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Zonnebeke Mud - 12 Oct 1917.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Zonnebeke Mud - 12 Oct 1917.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

VC Recipients link added to Battle of Passchendaele[edit]

To avoid introducing bias, any such link would need similar links for other participants. See below for the comprehensive list. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Battle of St. Mihiel[edit]

Thank you for your interest in this article. However, you have to be careful where you post the help template. You posted it in the middle of the article, whereas it belongs at the end of the article. Thank you for helping out, however. Cheers, edMarkViolinistDrop me a line 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ypres1917-Poelcappelle-Setup+Objectives.jpg[edit]

File:Ypres1917-Poelcappelle-Setup+Objectives.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ypres1917-Poelcappelle-Setup+Objectives.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Ypres1917-Poelcappelle-Setup+Objectives.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ypres1917-Poelcappelle-Results.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ypres1917-Poelcappelle-Results.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Ypres1917-Broodseinde-Setup+Objectives.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ypres1917-Broodseinde-Setup+Objectives.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Ypres1917-Broodseinde-Results.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ypres1917-Broodseinde-Results.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of the Somme (1918)[edit]

Strictly using the British official nomenclature isn't always appropriate, particularly when it invites confusion. As I am sure you are aware, the 1918 nomenclature is fraught with different names for the exact same events. So although the British wanted to call the event First Some 1918, Operational Micheal seems to have become the more popular name for the Spring Offensive (Kaiserschlacht) events in the Somme between March and April 1918. What a mess.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Please don't intersperse comments into what someone else has posted. It makes it very hard to follow. Instead, place your entire remark following the posting to which you're replying. See WP:TPG for general guidelines on using talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME[edit]

This MilMOS says that:"Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army".
I have carefully aligned all French corps, in accordance with their useage (1er Corps d'armee etc), as 2nd/3rd/19th Army Corps etc. The usage at Corps is superceded by WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME - otherwise we would use spelled-out numbers for Soviet armies. Would you please acknowledge this note, and then we can work together to fix this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Battle of Krivolak, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Armée d'Orient (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) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware of copyright issues[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the File:Ypres1917-German Defenses.jpg article, but 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.

This image was deleted because the base map you used is a copyrighted map. This means that it cannot be reused in this way.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page.

Blatant copyright violations are deleted on sight (before discussion) because they are a liability to Wikipedia. All I saw was an image that had been copied and adapted from a map on an external site not affiliated with the US government, and there was no indication on the image page that the map was a work of the US government. (I did notice that it was partially copied from the double map, and that is why I deleted it.) How do you know that this is a US government work? (Sorry for the inconsistent message - I was adapting a templated message that works better for images than text, and didn't make all the changes I should have.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The image page said nothing about it being a U.S. Government work ("References - Terrain: Map of Ypres/Cambrai from http://www.firstworldwar.com/maps/graphics/maps_61_wfront_cambrai_(800).jpg Strategic Defensive lines: Map of Ypres from Australian War Memorial Website: http://blog.awm.gov.au/awm/wp-content/uploads/maps/Ypres_Offensive.pdf Prior, Robin & Wilson, Trevor Passchendaele: The Untold Story, 1996 Yale University Press. ISBN: 0-300-06692-9 ) Licensing: {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}"). Finding this particular map online is not a trivial task. I google-image-searched for it, but it did not generate any hits. Where on http://www.firstworldwar.com/photos/maps.htm does this particular map appear? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Ypres1917-German Defenses.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ypres1917-German Defenses.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the map and listed it at PUI. Please identify the precise source of the base map there or on the image page so that the image does not risk deletion now or in the future! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Imperial army asked for an armistice on 29 October, two days before 31 October, when Hungary broke their union with Austria, effectively ending the Empire (and not on 27 October as mentioned). The armistice petition -accepting all Wilson's preconditions for peace- could have never come about had the battle not taken place, thus the military defeat predates Austria-Hungary's dissolution by at least 48hs. One of the cited sources uses the term "thereafter", so I see no reasons to claim that the statement is against NPoV policy. The same for Ludendorff's quote: "In Vittorio Veneto, Austria did not lose a battle, but lose the war and itself..." The offensive lasted until 4 November (a ceasefire had been arranged 24hs before) only because the Italian army commanders wanted to gain as much terrain as possible, but the Imperial troops had already conceded defeat by 29 October. We can discuss ad aeternum what was first, i.e. Italian victory or Habsburg collapse, but Wikipedia relies on sources, and cited sources are quite clear if not explicit on this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.225.209 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First Battle of Picardy listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First Battle of Picardy. Since you had some involvement with the First Battle of Picardy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheLongTone (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)