User talk:Slik357

License tagging for Image:Filephoto.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Filephoto.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Author-dec-12-2008.png

Thanks for uploading File:Author-dec-12-2008.png. 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) 17:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Electric Bath.png

Thanks for uploading File:Electric Bath.png. 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) 10:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: U Flashlight has been accepted

U Flashlight, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Fulton MX991/U Flashlight

Hello, as a reviewer I really enjoyed running across this article, since I was issued one of these back in 1999. Never took it on a deployment as by 2003 tiny LED lights were all the trend, but I still recall my old one from Boot Camp with some bitter nostalgia.

In any case, your article as submitted was kinda patchy since most of the sourcing was to enthusiast websites that are not necessarily authoritative, peer-reviewed, etc. Fortunately, I glanced around GoogleBooks, confirmed this model of flashlight is indeed "a thing", and has received academic attention, discussion, etc. So while the current sourcing is not great, I at least confirmed that this is worth writing about and objective documentation exists. I added what sources I found under "further reading".

For future articles, I suggest you start with the most reputable sources, like formal published books, news/journal articles, etc. Hobbyist sites are really best avoided, as though they might very often be quite correct and well-informed, they don't have independent confirmation of such. That is, I could make a website this evening claiming the MX runs on unicorn hoof powder, and with a polished-enough looking site I might look reputable. But I'd be much harder pressed to fool Osprey Publishing into putting that into a book without them calling me out on it, or get the New York Times to print such in a retrospective on Vietnam equipment. Make sense?

Whenever you write about anything, set your personal knowledge aside, and focus on finding strong sourcing, and let the sourcing dictate the article. Don't do it the other way 'round, writing what you know and then attempting to find verification for it.

In any case, thanks for the nostalgia trip, and I hope you'll stick around to write more articles and help build current ones! MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm only 9 years late here but I just wanted to say that I stumbled upon your kind comments towards one of my first articles. Thank you for providing such helpful and thoughtful critique! Indeed I'm a decade late to the party but I'd love to get back into contributing (noticably more high quality) work to Wiki.

Thanks again, and may 2023 be kind to you! Slik357 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]