User talk:SimonATL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit] Physical fitness

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia as we drive for print or DVD publication; see the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Monkeyman^(talk) 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Marine Corps

Your comment on User talk:El C is misplaced. El_C removed the childish vandalism; he didn't add it. User:L0gic is your vandal. TacoDeposit 02:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I had just figured that out even as you noticed - and corrected my mistaken post. El_C was the ANTI-vandal and I'm adding a nice page for LOgic.

[edit] Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 28% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 141 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 04:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I make a lot of minute mods and usually only make a summary if there's something significant but will make sure not to miss this useful step. Which article were you referring to and what did you think of the overall article. Thanks for taking the time to comment and suggest! SimonATL 04:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To see which article you put summary or you did not, you can look up at the top of the browser window, and click on "Contributions". Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:James Webb Sec Nav.jpg

Your fair use claim doesn't fly. Fair use would only work if it were being used to illustrate an article about AP. This is a copyrighted image, and its use in Wikipedia to illustrate the James Webb article is a copyright violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

United States Marine Corps Portal

Saw you user page and that you are a 22 year Marines Thought you might be interested in helping us with the new USMC portal if you have some time. Yut--Looper5920 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Webb

I don't think the webmaster of Webb's website has the legal authority to release an AP photo. Only AP can do that. However, copyright authorizations require explicit permissions -- see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you were telling me. Well, see the link above for how to handle the permission. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In the end, Webb's people released on of THEIR photos, not an AP photo. SimonATL 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand that they gave you permission, but they need somewhere to identify that they have given permission for the photo to be released to the GFDL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Work

I added a page on the 10th Marines, a unit in which I assigned for almost 4 years as a young lt and Forward observer (FO). The USMC Historical Center, a number of years back begain publishing regimental histories. Accordingly, I got a PDF file called "A Brief History of the 10th Marines." from this guy who sells them for pennies plus shipping. I'll begin revising the article ASAP. I was a history major and enjoy the work. Also, I've contributed stuff to the articles on Theodore Roosevelt and his large family and emailed his great-great-great grandson on some fact finding. SimonATL 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg Address

Hi, thanks for your contribution. I actually did find an audio link at NPR with the recording you mentioned, and I listened to it. I ultimately decided against including it because at the time I wasn't that sure about the authenticity and validity of his recollections generations after the fact. Also I think at the time I was editing I thought this recording focused much more on a "history lesson for the kids" type of story rather than very much in the way of details specific to Gettysburg on that day. Of course, I'm just another editor, not the final authority on this, and probably you are right to have added it. Best, Kaisershatner 15:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Simon, with all due respect, in reply to your comments on my talk page: "You apparently did not read my discussion of the background of this recording." Actually, I did. I think rather, it is you who have failed to read my comments above, where I say that "probably you are right to have added it," and where I explained that I wasn't confident about his recollections "generations after the fact" (ie, in 1938 when he made the recording), and where I wrote "this recording focused much more on a 'history lesson for the kids'" than about the reading of the Gettysburg Address. In any case, since I agree with your addition and admit it's just my POV about the other things, I'm not clear on why exactly your plan is "I'm going to take this up with the appeals process as this thing is authentic." What is it that you are appealing? Some free advice: you'll waste less time if you don't fight with someone who isn't arguing with you.

As for the rest of your lengthy comments, "The very fact that in his life, he did not try to sell or push this fact...actually supports its validity." I understand that is your opinion. "I'm convinced of its authenticity." Wonderful! "He became a well-respected religious writer, public lecturer and a director of the Christian Science church. (NO relation to wierdo Scientology, by the way and publisher of the Christian Science Monitor winner of 7 Pulitizer Prizes)." Thanks, I know the difference, although I'm usually a bit more respectful about other people's religious beliefs - and plenty I people I've spoken to think Christian Science is a bit wacky, FWIW. "What kind of "proof" do you need." I don't need any. As I mentioned twice above, I think you are probably right to have added it, and I certainly don't have a problem with the article asserting this is a recording of a guy who says he remembers being there. That's exactly what it is, and it's probably true that he was there and remembers it. I don't see a conflict here, but if you want to "argue" with me about it, then that's ok I guess - it's a free country and all. Best, Kaisershatner 16:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vivien Leigh images

Hi, I notice you've changed the images in the Vivien Leigh article. I appreciate that you have worked on the article to try to improve it. I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, the 1958 image of her is the only public domain image we have of her. As Wikipedia should at all times be promoting free use as much as possible, it should be the lead image. The copyright status is a greater consideration that the aesthetic. The first image of her in the barbecue dress was, a few months ago, the image in use. It was deleted because of concerns over copyright. I don't think that is now an issue because you've addressed the image description page, but its fair use status is less than the public domain status of the other, and therefore it's less suitable. I also feel that a fair use argument for two images from or relating to the same film, weakens the fair use case. The previous screenshot depicted her in character, "acting", and I think is a suitable image.

On a personal note, I am the author of this article, and although I fully realize that I do not "own" it, I do intend to keep an eye on it and ensure that it maintains its legitimacy. I'm slightly affronted that your edit summaries for the replacement of the images read "better image" chosen etc. This is a matter of opinion, and I don't think they are better images necessarily, just different, and the one of her and Gable is really the same image we've seen a thousand times. I feel frustrated that after spending several weeks writing the article, watching Gone with the Wind virtually frame by frame to find a suitable screenshot, and then nominating and seeing it through to Featured article status, the entire look of the article has been changed in the space of a few edits and a short amount of time. While the "be bold" principle is fine, I think discussing radical changes is at the very least good etiquette, especially for a featured article. - The community promoted the previous article, but might not have promoted the current version, as the use of images was discussed considerably during the process. I'm concerned the case for fair use is now weaker than it was. I'm going to revert them, and I hope and request that before making any further changes you could perhaps discuss it on the talk page. Rossrs 13:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your reply. Firstly, I must apologise for the dictatorial tone of my previous message, which I truly did not mean. To be honest, my comments to you were a knee jerk reaction, and came at the end of a long, tiresome day, so I am sorry, and 24 hours later I'm wondering what I was making a fuss about. I've been thinking about the images. Firstly the 1958 image came from Wikipedia Commons, and is one of a fairly substantial group of portraits in the Canadian Library that are not restricted by copyright. There's a link on the image description page that leads to the Library and Archives Canada page ([1] We are stuck with it, but fortunately it's quite a good, dramatic image (in my opinion) though definitely not how Leigh is remembered.

I think either of the images you uploaded would be a suitable replacement for the GWTW screenshot. Part of my reasoning with the screenshot was to include Gable, because I didn't think it was right that Olivier be the only costar depicted (at that time I'd settled on the Fire over England and the Shakespeare shots), but later I added the Brando, which makes the Gable less of a requirement. I think if the Brando remains, the Gable could go. I also thought a colour image would be good as it is a technicolour picture, but the Time image does this job. So I've kind of talked myself out of the image that I was so strong about yesterda. The barbecue one is very good and I won't object if you add it, in fact I would encourage you to do so, so please go ahead. Perhaps the screenshot more correctly belongs in the article on the film itself. I'm not quite so sure about the Leigh/Gable embrace image. I don't think it gives a true sense of the film, of Leigh or even of Scarlett. I'm glad that we are having a discussion rather than an altercation, and I thank you for making that possible, by replying in such a calm manner. Rossrs 09:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "red dress" image and replaced it with the barbecue shot. It does look a lot better. Rossrs 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cathytreks

what a kook she was! I guess we all got some comic relief--and I only hope my death photo looks as handsome as Lincoln's. :) Rjensen 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen...you disgraced wiki for attacking my character here as well as now illegaly removing my edit on your page for the blight you did against me on the Lincoln Talk page, and stirred up A HORNETS NEST, that would be having everyone against me for what in the end became a debate for even trying... to get the truth out as many scholars have in the past, and whom continue to debate that photograph you smeared as a hoax and a lie, to this day more and more....why?

You illegaly removed my departure note to you on your wiki user page in violation of wiki policy, If I cant do it, nor can you! and they have been informed.

I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?

I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,

Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!

        A PERSONAL HERO TO MANY!

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

Lincoln in 1847

I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.

I am heartsick over some of the attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.

I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....

Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves

shalom

....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."

So...see ya round the galaxy guys!...oh..."kook , eh? Rjensen".....we shall see. (Cathytreks 14:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] More on images

Hi, the toolserver [2] shows you have about 20 images missing source and license info. You might want to go fix them up before the untagged image elves get there, scrub them out of all articles, and delete. Most are probably PD, which should make it a pretty quick cleanup task. Thanks for helping! Stan 06:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-US}} is likely the right thing for old images. URL for old images is usually good enough; there's not going to be an actual copyright holder to track down. Stan 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BullochfrmL.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BullochfrmL.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joanna Sturm

Hi! Thanks for the explanation! I think the article itself should explain the notability; it is less useful on my talk page. Now the bulk of the article is about other people and events before Joanna Sturm was even born; it is hard to spot why Joanna Sturm was notable herself. Weregerbil 09:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please go back to the article and see my expanded comments on Joanna Sturm's place in the life of Alice Roosevelt and her contributions to virtually every Roosevelt historian in the last 30 years and to 20th Century Womens history. Thanks. SimonATL 09:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article request - Artillery spotting

I saw your comment to Looper5920. I have an article request that seems right up your alley. I'm putting the finishing touches on Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (it will soon be promoted to featured article). On the FAC page for that article, it was mentioned that we don't have an article on artillery spotting. Would you be interested in writing one? Raul654 02:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looper - Yes, I'd be interested but Artillery spotting is only part of a much larger picture. What used to be called in WW-II, "artillery spotting" today is considered under a much larger category of Fire Support Coordination (FSC). This would be a much more useful article and here's why. FSC includes traditional "artillery spotting," Naval Gunfire (NGF)and forward air control (FAC). So you can clobber the "bad guy" from land, sea or air and such an article could be broken up into 3 separate parts plus a part on how all three are put together. We could put a redirect for "artillery spotting" right into that article. What do you think? I take it you're a historian, but perhaps, not formally trained in some of these things? I slaved through a friggin YEAR in the classroom at Quantico, VA and then out at the US Army's School of Artillery at Fort Sill, OK. I've been out of touch with some of this stuff as I retired in 98 with 22 years. But the good thing is that the Arty School puts out a GREAT technical mag on Artillery topics and since it's government property, I could draw heavly on it. Also, the same for the other areas. Another thing to consider is the evolution of the whole deal. From some little turk gunner with his little quadrant in a direct fire mode poundin the walls at Constantinople to the Napoleonic age, when things got better organizationally, to the US Civil war with its Federal (Yankee) iron rifled artillery kicking the crap out of Confederate brass canons with their defective fuses at Gettysburg, to the late 19th century when (yes, its hard to believe) the dang French (although they're quite clever in the engineering field historically, right?) invented a pneumatic recoil mechanism that allowed a cannon to recoil, recover from that and go back into almost the same position, allowing for much better control, to target acquisition by binoculars and balloons to locating the enemy by sound ranging, flash ranging and finally modern radar. So, its a fairly complex subject. But looking at your background in engineering, you'd really get off on it cause its a perfect melding of science, technology, mathematics (gunnery) and "violent execution" by artillery, the "King of Battle" as the "red legs" out at Fort Sill are called.

Lots of rambling here, but you get my point. A quite interesting topic. Another consideration. To do this right would really require extensive graphics - you know, parabolic arches and stuff and maps of the spotter, the target, the battery and how all that comes together in the Fire Direction Center (FDC). By they way, looper, with your great math/tech/science background you would have been like #1 in your class at Fort Sill in the Basic Officer Course (BOC) and the Field Artillery Cource (FAC). Seriously, you would have wadded thru that stuff. They take the math brainiacs and put them RIGHT in that FDC where they call the shots and the Army LOVES the HELL out of good gunnery officers. You have NO idea how much and how FAR these guys can go. I was more music/art than math/science, so I had to "make" myself study the stuff, but I got good at it, actually and became an FDC inspector for a time, double-checking for their accuracy.

So, let's discuss the breadth and scope of this stuff. By they way, I couldn't help but notice that you're kind of at the top of the wiki food chain and probably inhabiting some secret temple on Wiki Mt. Olympus. Just how did this stuff evolve as far as it has? Its really quite sophisticated, IMHO (well, Marines have a hard time being humble) anyway, how do people become editors, admins and the like?

I've written a fair number of articles, including some totally new stuff and my background in ancient civilizations, Latin, some Greek, etc, has been helpful - dude - even Wiki articles in Latin! Anyway, as a medieval (sp) dude stuck in the 21st Century, Wiki is right up my alley, and unlike too damned many people, I can actually write a coherent English paragraph and some Spanish and French too boot.

Do you dudes have like Wiki conventions where you wear like the wiki version of Star Trek costumes and have Wiki groupies and hangers on? I mean what's the extent of this wiki culture? Call me some time. You can email me at SimonATL (at) yahoo.com cause I'd like to take about 20 minutes to get my hands around this whole wiki universe. I've been too busy editing in English, Spanish and Latin to notice much of the background wiring in the walls and cultural/political stuff like that.

Hey, you're the featured article guy. Then you'll notice how much I've expanded the Theodore Roosevelt article, subject matter wise, much more interesting photos. Others like that Lee guy did the footnoting. I also added the entire section on his trip up the River of Doubt in 1913. And know what, because of all that work, and my writing an article on the Theodore Roosevelt (TRA) organization and on TR's great-great grandson, Tweed Roosevelt, I came to the attention of the Roosevelt family and they invited me to become a member of their Strategic Advisory Board to look at how IT and the Web can help them. So, you see, sometimes their are unintended consequences. Anyway, I'll help, but I've burned up so much time, I'll have to allot my hours, dig? thanks SimonATL 05:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on my talk page. Raul654 08:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

You have been busy! :)

What can I say, I love TR and "most" of the Roosevelts and Wikipedia.

What a "world" it is with links that take you everwhere! Found some great pics of James Dunwoody Bulloch and added an article on his brother, Irvine Bulloch, uncles of TR.

Been looking at Spanish articles, French and even some Russian and Arabic - Sergius Witte Russian plenipotentiary during the negotiations over the Russo-Japanese War. Amazing how some corrupt Latin American dictator who died in Paris while undergoing Syphilis treatment (in English) is described as having died while visiting his mother (in Spanish) what a hoot! SimonATL 19:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for JLC Chamberlain Edits

You're welcome. I try to tone down the hagiography that some Wikipedians apply to Chamberlain. Although he was an admirable man, The Movie has elevated him to godlike status among some. And he himself did little to discourage that sort of thing. Hal Jespersen 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chamberlain had his faults. He pretty much ignored most of his wife's intuitions and this led him to lose money on speculative ventures. He was certainly no fool, however. And a brave cuss to the end. I'm going to add a section on how he stood up to a mob on the steps of the Capital of Maine that wanted to physically rough up the legislators because they had passed a bill that really agravated the crowd. JLC had to literally appeal to 20th Maine old geezers who stood with him and faced down the mob. Guy had guts, no doubt about that. By the way, at his old Alma Mater, the students stagged a musical on his life according to an alumnus who used to work with me. PS - Good vocab word, Hagiography, as I love lots of that classical and later Greek stuff as in the Koine Greek from the Lords Prayer, "hagiasteetou ton onooma sou", "Hallowed (holy) is the name of you.". SimonATL 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bliss Knapp

Made some tweaks correcting the source and expanding the section slightly on the impersonalist interpretation of Rev 12, but think it stays within NPOV, and other details needed touchup anyway. Had heard the Rathvon reminiscence, it's definitely an interesting listen. If you get the chance, you might clarify earlier on the MMC article that it was basically resubsumed into the Board of Ed. Chris Rodgers 06:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrat Party article

Hello Simon. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt resignation letter

Simon, do you have a source for the letter you added as I was thinking of moving it to wikisource. Thanks AllanHainey 11:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I'm unaware of what wikisource is about and for which is why I posted the letter here, because I'd never seen the entire item in any Roosevelt bio. The original letter is up for sale on Ebay for $8,499,99 and the URL is: http://cgi.ebay.com/THEODORE-ROOSEVELT-Letter-of-Resignation-NYPD_W0QQitemZ320000215450QQihZ011QQcategoryZ33776QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem SimonATL 11:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore Roosevelt III

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Theodore Roosevelt III article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Ardric47 21:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as putting the section back, my opinion is that it might be better to rewrite it in your own words; the original text seemed a bit long-winded.

Regarding the "powers," most people are probably referring to administratorship. It's somewhat debatable how much they help one contribute content, because most of the extra tools are related to blocking users and deleting pages. "Promotions" to administrator are discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Hope this helps, Ardric47 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not an administrator, just an enthusiastic editor who gets involved in policy and procedure. So far, I haven't had any real reasons to want to be an admin. Ardric47 02:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does one become an ADMIN?

Not sure why you've asked me as I'm not an admin on wikipedia. But I think all the details are at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, just read it and add your name I think. AllanHainey 11:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kunsler.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kunsler.jpg. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 16:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TR Article

Hello,

I noticed that you have done some work on the Theodore Roosevelt Article. This is more of a technical question than anything. I tried to add the Category: Deaths by cardiovascular disease, but when it entered edit mode the Category section wasn't there. Perhaps you have more experience with this type of thing than I. Can you help?

Regards,

Michael David 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Simon,

Thanks for the info on the layout of the TR article. I had just seen an excellent documentary called "Amazon Adventures" on The History Channel. A major section of it covered TR's horrendous trek through it. It covered his illnesses and his heart problems, and I was inspired to search him out in Wiki.

Be healthy,

Michael David 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Simon,

I just visited your User Page. It taught me that you are someone I'd like to talk with. I'm going to take you up on your alternative method of communication and compose an E-mail. Be in touch again soon.

Michael David 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kunsler.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kunsler.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BrownCow • (how now?) 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kuntsler.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:TR Great White Fleet Sales Kuntsler.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigDT 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Pilate-inscription 03.jpg

[edit] German General Staff

Your contributions to this article are welcome, but in my opinion could do with being written in a less specialised form of English, and with more references.

With regard to your introduction:

"... humil[i]ating battlefield defeats of the Prussian Army at the hands of Austria and France in the 17th and 18th Centuries" ; Prussia did not exist as a separate nation in the 17th Century.

"While a succession of brilliant kings starting with Frederich the Great ..."; Frederick's successors were Frederick William II of Prussia, who was sensual and pleasure-loving, Frederick William III of Prussia, who was vacillating and irresolute, and Frederick William IV of Prussia, who went mad and abdicated. William I of Prussia came to the throne in the mid-19th century, long after Scharnhorst's and Gneisenau's reforms were in place.

I meant to refer to Frederick I of Prussia, King "in" Prussia not Frederick the Great - glad you caught that.

"...institutionalize the military talent found in the talented German generals that had brought martial glory to Prussia" ; a tautology. Also, "institutionalize" has overtones in British english of being committed to the care of social services, or even a lunatic asylum !(With all due respect to T.N. Dupuy, the article must be written so as to be interesting to and comprehensible by the non-specialist reader.) HLGallon 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest comments on my user space. A Tautology is saying the same thing twice in different words. Perhaps, I used the wrong phrase here by this strict definition, but "the military talent found in the talented German generals" does seem to hit the nail over the head unnecessarily often. On your second point, I prefer to put comments which might be taken as a criticism of style or research, in users' private discussion pages (as we are doing here) rather than in the article's discussion section, to avoid making any arguments too public. HLGallon 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again thank you for your comments on my talk page. I must also apologise for what must now seem pedantic and censorious. Your own background makes you better qualified than many contributors on the subject of the German General Staff (incidentally, I too was once a junior officer in the British Territorial Army), and perhaps you could expand and improve the last paragraphs, which are starting to look a bit short compared with the rest of the article. Incidentally, I have been squelched many times by the Wiki community where my own research has been inadequate or my phrasing has been imprecise or esoteric. HLGallon 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Clay_s_jenkinson.jpg listed for deletion