User talk:Cglassey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Nlu (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] thanks for your neutrality

I've seen your work. Are you a historian, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Regard. Fad (ix) 21:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals
  • Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy e 04:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hughes H-1 influence

You are misreading the NASM page and making VERY big leaps of logic. The H-1 was a successful fast radial-engined aircraft. It did not have an influence on the design of the aircraft you mentioned. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that my comments are "wildly speculative".
"Now regarding the Japanese Zero . . . The Japanese Zero was a shock of the utmost magnitude to the United States because it had been thought up to that time that the Japanese were far inferior mechanically, I should say in point of aircraft design and mechanical aptitude, to the United States and nobody expected the Japanese to have an airplane that would be at all competitive. Well, in any event, when one of these Japanese Zeros was finally captured and studied and analyzed it was quite apparent to everyone that it had been copied from the Hughes plane which has been discussed earlier here." UNLV Library Howard Hughes web page.
"The Hughes H-1 was designed for record-setting purposes, but it also had an impact on the design of high-performance aircraft for years to come... The Hughes H-1 racer was a major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters as the American Grumman F6F Hellcat and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, the Japanese Mitsubishi Type 0 (Zero), and the German Focke-WuIf FW 190. It demonstrated that properly designed radial-engine aircraft could compete with the lower-drag inline designs despite having larger frontal areas because of their radial engine installations." National Air and Space Museum H-1 Racer
"This airplane (the H-1), nevertheless, inspired many subsequent radial-engine fighters: the Republic P-47, Mitsubishi Zero and Focke-Wulf 190." Curtiss Wright Corporation History
Jim Wright (who built the replica of the H-1): Wright was intrigued by the H-1 for a variety of reasons. One was the technological aspect of the H-1. It was advanced far beyond the state-of-the-art for 1935; the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes at the time. The H-1 had a major impact on aircraft development, and likely influenced such notable aircraft as the P-47, the Zero, and the Focke-Wolfe Fw-190. AVweb
In my opinion the NASM, the UNLV web site and the Curtis Wright web sites are authoritative. In addition, Jim Wright was an expert on the plane. I believe these sources. user:cglassey
All of this is completely speculative (remember, no speculation or original research on Wikipedia). I've heard the Zero claim before but never from a primary source I could cite (I have a copy of the official USAAF analysis of the Zero based on a captured aircraft and it makes no mention of the H-1) -- everything you mentioned is a secondary source and none of them cite any references. Therefore, they are very likely to perpetuate generalizations, myths, and misconceptions. Note that none of your sources say HOW the H-1 influenced these aircraft, only that it did (leading by example perhaps? that's a BIG leap of logic and an ever bigger leap of evidence). This is akin to claiming that the canard-equipped Wright Flyer influenced the Sukhoi Su-30. You need to cite primary sources and show specific details, not broad generalizations. H-1 was not unique -- there were plenty of other streamlined radial-engined designs at the time, particularly those from Lockheed and Northrop, that could make the same sweeping claims of paternity. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not making over-broad generalizations, nor am I doing "original research", nor am I engaged in speculation. Howard Hughes, the National Air and Space Museum, the historian for Curtis Wright company, and others are making these statements. I judge that these people are (a) reputable (b) in a position to know and (c) are acknowledged experts on the subject. The extent of my involvement was to look at the timeline on design and determin that the assertions are plausible. Then I added the comments into the articles. I fail to see how you can assert that a direct statement by Howard Hughes on this topic is not a primary source. He designed and built the H-1. If anyone was in a position to judge if a plane is based on his design, it is Hughes. Even if a designer for the Zero, or the Fw-190, or the P-47 was to assert that they didn't base their design on the H-1, would their statement be considered definative? No. The designers of the Zero and the other planes mentioned have every incentive to magnify their own contribution and minimize the contributions of others. Which is why when asserting one design is based on a previous design, we (the non-experts) rely on informed judgements by experts in the field. I submit that the sources I have quoted fullfill this criteria. user:cglassey

You are quoting tertiary sources that do not cite references but that make sweeping generalizations. The kind of writing on the NASM or Wright page would get reverted in a flash on Wikipedia due to sweeping unreferenced statements. How can you call them "reputable" and "experts" if you don't even know the authors of the writings. Hughes makes a vague statement to the tune of "my airplane was copied by the Japanese" but presents no evidence. Therefore, absolutely the only way to present it is as "Howard Hughes claimed that the Zero was copied from his H-1 racer" (reference).
Regardless, neither you nor the sources you cite explain HOW the H-1 influenced the P-47 and the Fw 190. Burden of proof on Wikipedia always lies with the editor adding the material (that is, with you in this case). Your proof is two unreferenced tertiary sources making broad generalizations. Your evidence presents no support whatsoever for the claims they make.
For example, I can state that Sud Caravelle had influence on DC-9, Tu-134, and Boeing 727. I can support this claim with evidence that the Caravelle was the first airliner to use rear-mounted engines. It proved the scheme to be workable (there were Cg concerns) and demonstrated a considerably quieter and vibration-free passenger cabin. The DC-9 and B-727 were early implementations of the same layout. When a Soviet leader flew on the Caravelle, he was so impressed he ordered Tupolev to build an airliner with the same engine configuration, which became the Tu-134. Compare this with the totally unexplained claims in your "expert" references. Essentially, you have to show that the H-1 pioneered some sort of innovation that was directly adopted by other designs. And you cannot show that because the H-1 was only a well-done implementation of existing concepts. Another example: the P-43 Lancer did not lead up to P-47 because of timeline or similar looks/layout. Rather, it was a radial-engined fighter with a mid-fuselage mounted turbosupercharger. The system was refined on the P-47. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Quote from the Wikipedia on sources: A primary source is any piece of information that was created at the time being studied, by the people being studied...oral interviews with participants taken years later are considered primary sources Primary source. Howard Hughes, offering an opinion about about his plane, the H-1, and its role in aviation history, in 1954, is a primary source. Not a tertiary source. Howard Hughes, as the designer, does not have to offer any support for his opinion. He is an expert on the topic and is capable of rendering an opinion on it which carries real weight for historians. The NASM is an athoritative source on the airplanes in its collection. Period. If you don't accept this statement then we have nothing more to talk about. I don't have to know who wrote the statements about the H-1 on the NASM web site because the statements are backed by the full historical weight of the NASM. "A secondary source is a historical work built up from primary sources." What is on the NASM web site is a secondary source, not a tertiary source. To quote from the article on primary sources: "A primary source is not, by default, more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source." The article on the Curtis Wright web site is by William Wraga, an historian for the Curtis Wright company who has writen a number of historical articles. He is a reputable historian of aviation, his work was citied in an official government publication on the history of aviation. He is not a tertiary source. So, will you cease this attack on my sources as "tertiary sources"? They are, as I assert, reputable and valid sources - both primary and secondary - for opinions about the relationship between the Hughes H-1 Racer and subsequent war planes of WWII. In my opinion, I have fully satisfied the burden of proof for including the statements I listed in the articles. Now, its your turn. What experts do you have which support your contention that the H-1 Racer was not copied by the later planes? I've got experts that say it was, what primary or secondary sources do you have that says this is not true? What is your well sourced arguement for keeping this out of the articles? user:cglassey

I think I've already established the appropriate citation of the Hughes interview. An opinion of an eccentric designer (or any person for that matter) must be presented as their opinion, not fact. Especially because there is no evidence presented anywhere (or even suggested) that Hughes himself had examined the captured Zero. "It was obvious to everyone" is a weasel phrase. The USAAF report makes no mention of H-1 similarities.

As for the other two references, neither of them says that the H-1 was copied (YOUR words) by subsequent aircraft.

  • NASM: major milestone aircraft on the road to such radial engine-powered World War II fighters
  • Wright: This airplane, nevertheless, inspired many subsequent radial-engine fighters

YOU took these two passing statements and blew them up into a paragraph about H-1 being copied by Kartveli, Tank, and Mitsubishi. In fact, the Hughes racer did NOTHING innovative. It was simply a good execution of the concepts already implemented elsewhere (a 1930s F-4 Phantom II, if you will). Lockheed Vega had the NACA-cowled radial engine in 1926. Lockheed Orion had all the same aerodynamic refinements as the H-1 in 1931 -- four years prior. Both articles are guilty of editorializing -- they are not written from a neutral point of view and present a very H-1 -centric depiction of history at the expense of accuracy. Considering that the H-1 never left United States, I want to see evidence that Tank and Mitsubishi even knew that it existed or had ever seen it in enough detail to grasp its construction specifics.

And again, regardless of the presumed level of expertise of the authors, neither of the articles is verifiable because neither cites its sources. That makes for secondary/tertiary sources of dubious accuracy. Nowhere in the professional world does being an expert exempt one from citing the sources.

To further discredit your sources, I quote: It was advanced far beyond the state-of-the-art for 1935; the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes at the time.

In 1935, USAAC was flying P-26 monoplanes and in 1936 the all-metal Seversky P-35 and Curtiss P-36 with retractable landing gear were put into production. In the same 1935, Luftwaffe was already testing the Bf 109. So much for "expertise," eh?

- Emt147 Burninate! 07:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you really asserting that in 1935 "the military was still flying fabric-covered fixed-gear biplanes" is a false statement? Are you really asserting the NASM isn't a reliable source of information about the planes in its collection? Just because the military was flying some planes which were not fabric covered biplanes hardly invalidates the above statement. user:cglassey

Quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources "However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the fact template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding not verified or unsourced at the top of the page." Hmmm? Seems to me my modifications to the articles in question fall in the "not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful" category, yet you deleted them very rapidly...
You do understand the extreme subjectivity of that judgement call, right? My knowledge of aviation history and evolution of aircraft design is sufficiently deep that to me the material was obviously wrong and rather absurd (and derived from questionable sources to boot). To insert incorrect material and then tag it as such does nothing except compromise the integrity of the articles.
Besides that, the burden of proof still lies with the submitting editor. To me, your claims were insufficiently verifiable. Note that no one has bothered to revert my deletion.
Actually the quote above is invalidated. It is an obviously incorrect broad generalization since the military was already flying all-metal monoplane aircraft as well as some fabric biplanes. And yes, museums can be wrong (I work in one, I know). Find some better quality sources than some websites that came up on Google. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ciuna

Hello! First, please, excuse my poor english, I'm Horatius of it:wiki. I'm (slowly) writing about roman battles and I can't find any info about the battle linked above. Since I read you are interested in Roman battles I wonder if you could please kindly tell me where to find some info? I read all Titus Livius but I didn't find anything about Ciuna for Second Samnite War. Meanwhile I inform you I wrote an article about the Battle of Suessola (end of First Samnite War) if some of you think useful to translate from italian... Vale! Horatius [1]

Thanks for answering anyway. As far as I know, Livius wrote about a "battle of Cluvia" (a very small one of the Samnite Wars) (IX, 31) I wandered if they were the same battles. Perhaps they aren't. Thanks again. bye! Horatius [2]--151.46.228.91 19:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hey Cglassey,

Could you check the following articles for NPOV and accuracy? Thanks.

Thanks. —Khoikhoi 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding First Armenian Republic (1915-16); Confederation of Armenian parties, which had a representation in Ottoman parliament, come together and formed a local governing structure in this region. Ottoman documents define it as a revolt coordinated by Armenian confederation. I'm aware the fact that this area was a war zone, as we know from historical perspective and overall control of Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich was a fact. However, I could easily see an issue regarding the fact that it was really not different than the origination of TBMM. OR if was not crushed, it could have easily replace the democratic republic of Armenia, as the distinction between them was very diffuse (same people, same party, same military power). I do understand your point, and if you could help, there may be a better way to define it. As far as I can say; it may be in very early stages of becoming a state (from ARF perspective), but it has a political and military structure. Thanks. --OttomanReference 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cglassey, thanks for your reply. I was going to suggest you discuss it with him to work out a compromise. Is there any other option in your mind other than removing the articles? Perhaps making it so all POVs are heard in them? —Khoikhoi 04:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, those are good suggestions. You should probably say the same thing to OttomanReference on his talk page. BTW, since you're a historian, how strong is the evidence that the Turkish government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide for a short time after WWI? —Khoikhoi 01:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again! I have another question - I've heard some people say "historians are still trying to determine what happened from 1915-1918 in the Ottoman Empire"? Is that true? I thought most historians agree that it was a genocide. —Khoikhoi 22:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. Is the evidence that there was a genocide strong? —Khoikhoi 03:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

I notice that you were a major contributor to expanding this article; in particular, in expanding the introduction. IIt is currently the Military history WikiProject Collaboration of the Fortnight.) I have a few questions about his contributions to history — in particular, do you feel that his contribution as a military strategist is more notable that his role as field marshall and/or as chief of staff of the Prussian army? — ERcheck (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Kim campbell damage a10.jpg

What type of damage did the A-10 substain? I'm gussing Class B, but the link doesn't say. =) Jumping cheese Contact 10:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] LoTR pages

Take it to Talk:One Ring, please. This shouldn't be just between you and me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CrossGen Comics

It wasn’t my intention to aggravate you. You put allot of effort into those pages i see that. I just think its better (aesthetically and in illustrating characters) to have portraits of characters when possible. Don't get me wrong i think its great people have taken notice of the lack in CrossGen pages, its just that I’ve seen pictures changed all the time to better ones and i didn't think you'd care, in fact i thought you'd be happy that images without speech bubbles and the like are being used instead of crappy cropped pictures taken from random issues. Although i can understand the amount of time it would have taken to find a picture crop it and upload etcetera. I’m not doing it to piss you off if that’s what you’re getting at, why would i waste my time doing that??? The pictures are just better looking that’s all.

I don’t think I’ve ever written to another user and i don’t know how to do that time/date thingy so... Savre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savre (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Now it certainly seems you feel like you've been offended in some way, personally, like im trying to hurt you or something. How are they in violation?? I tagged them corectly i have uploaded images of the same type numerous times now and they still remain. I think you’re jealous or something? There are hundreds of portrait images used on Wiki. Why go through so much trouble to revert them?? I’m sorry are they your pages are they??? The image of Zannati was far superior to yours. It seems to be me that your try to antagonize me with your, "mine are better reverts". If you want to play edit wars well play it by yourself.

I've changed my mind.

  • A) Images don't need to be by the original artist. Don't be so pedantic.
  • B) Have you seen the Batman and Flash pages. Potraits..nuff said. They even use clean covers which is another story all in itself.
  • C) This is wikipedia, i don't need to be considerate.
  • D) Don't be so narcissistic, no page stays the same. Someone wil eventually change something. I'm just going to do it sooner than later.

It a good thing for you i'm an Apokruphos Proletariat or there would be edits galore to the pages you started.

The Negation War has begun.Savre 18:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Worm Orobouros

Nice work. One of my all time favorite books (love the language). I'm looking forward to seeing more of your work. BTW, if you're going to indicate page numbers, you should probably indicate what publication version you're talking about. And include ISBNs. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, understand where you're coming from. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] American, proud

you say, on your userboxes, that you are PROUD to be an American. Do you support the Iraq War or not? I'm just curious, since most Americans I know don't. Cam 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC) User:Climie.ca

I think that overall Iraq (and the world) with Saddam out of power (and now dead) is better than it was before. On balance the 2003 invasion of Iraq has resulted in a better world. Not ideal, but better than it was in 2002. Cglassey 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese Naming Convention

There seems to be an inconsistent usage of Vietnamese diacritical marks for article titles. I've created a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) page to begin the discussion on setting a convention. Yellowtailshark 03:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Animora Mystic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Animora Mystic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Arwyn Sojourn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arwyn Sojourn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ashleigh Scion.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashleigh Scion.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brio Technology

I've put Brio Technology up for speedy deletion on the grounds that it does not assert importance, and it's completely unsourced. If you think you can fix it, please feel free to add a { {hangon} } tag to the article so you will be given time. Best Regards, Wikidan829 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:H-1 Racer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:H-1 Racer.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Descent Board Game3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Descent Board Game3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chinese Laquer Screen1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chinese Laquer Screen1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Chinese Willow Pattern1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chinese Willow Pattern1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Epic Barnstar
Awarded to Cglassey for his work on the Le Dynasty and the Trinh Lords and Nguyen Lords. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you get back to active editing soon! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dean Karnazes1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dean Karnazes1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bernd Rechts Scion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bernd Rechts Scion.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)