User talk:HLGallon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, HLGallon, 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! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. 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! --Ragib 05:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Rebecca

Ooh, thanks for your additions to the Rebecca riots article. I have been meaning to do something with the article for ages, but never got a chance to sit down to it. Nice to see it growing. Telsa 10:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burma Campaing

It has been a pleasure working with you on the Burma campaign. What is your source for the Japanese information you have been adding as the books I have been reading on the subject are all from a British or American perspective? Philip Baird Shearer 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Your last addition to the Burma Campaign is I think contriversial:

Most were Indians. During the period ... This flight permanently changed the racial mix of Burma.[1]
  1. ^  So I think it must have a Wikipedia:footnote with a source. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Mackinac

I was more interested in changing the Michimackinac reference which was quite incorrect and thought that the fort should also be identified. I agree that it is appropriate to put in both places some people only skim to headings they are interested in. Dabbler 01:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RQMS/CQMS

I'm not sure where you're from, but in the British Army and Royal Marines an RQMS is a WO2. A CQMS/SQMS/BQMS is a Staff/Colour Sergeant. Only the RSM is a WO1. -- Necrothesp 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Was in RSigs 1980-81, TA 1982-83. Probably age has clouded the memory, but things may have been slightly different in technical arms. Certainly, I recall the RQMS (Tech) was a WO1; the SqnQMS (Tech) was a WO2 (for a detached unit with one of everything). HLGallon 12:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that in my experience (also TA plus studying the military and military history for years), I have never encountered an RQMS who was anything other than a WO2 or a CQMS/SQMS/BQMS who was anything other than a SSgt/CSgt. It may be different in a few units, but as a general rule that's the case. -- Necrothesp 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Found this throu Google looking for "SQMS" because I received an email signed as below (name removed).

A N OTHER

WO2 (SQMS) A N OTHER AGC(SPS)

Rheindahlen Support Unit (RSU)

[edit] Image copyright problem RE: Image:37 Inch Mountain Howitzer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:37 Inch Mountain Howitzer.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

  • The copyright holder, and
  • The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

  • The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.
  • Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
  • Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --bluemask 16:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Battle of Orewin Bridge, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Units of the War of 1812

Great Job !! SirIsaacBrock 11:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be making minor additions as and when I can verify the information and get round to doing it. HLGallon 14:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Kohima ridge.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kohima ridge.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Contributions

First off, I left a note on the Engagement on Lake_Huron talk page. Second, thanks a lot, now I'm gonna be up reading your articles. I blame you if I'm grumpy in the morning! TKE 05:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kohima ridge.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kohima ridge.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megiddo POW count

It was very confusing, and I'm glad you informed me. Please, though, take into consideration the possibility of citing the difference of strength and casualties, so as to make it less confusing. Эйрон Кинни (t) 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering footnotes (thanks, but....)

You tried to number the footnotes at Battle of Prestonpans in this edit. I appreciate the effort, but the numbers came out wrong -- i.e. footnote 1 in the text corresponded to number 4 in the notes. In this edit I redid the notes using m:cite.php, which is now the recommended method for notes (plus it made the numbers correct). Thanks for your contributions and happy editing!--Craig Stuntz 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Central India Campaign (1858), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Dismissal of Bucknall and Erskine

Hi - apologies for that, you are correct. Note however that you wrote that Bucknall was dismissed on 2 July, not August, and Erskine the following day, which led me to believe that it was related to something else, and caused the revert. Next time I go check and just change the date. :-) Nice work on the article by the way. Andreas 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Cherbourg

Hi. I left a short message on the discussionpage of this article which was created by you. Maybe you can use some of it. Would you like to take part in Meta:Imperialism and world wars? Would be great. Regards, John N. 13:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Mackinac Island (1812)

I see that you've recently created this article, and you did a wonderful job I might add. However, it seems to already exist. see Battle of Mackinac Island. I redirected your page to the one that already exists, and you switched it back. Ok. That's cool. Perhaps it would be beneficial to combine the two pages somehow? They seem to be fairly similar. I dunno. Just seems sorta redundant, on the other hand, maybe you know something I don't and they aren't the same battle. I'm curious, please reply.--SweetNeo85 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German General Staff Article

Appreciate your points. Not sure why you have this thing about tautologies?

I made some changes in the article precisely because the below comment.

The introduction is pretty poor. I have absolutely no idea what the German General Staff is after reading it... -- Pluke 22:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as your point about tautologies. I'm just trying to make the article a little "exciting" instead of sterile. As for the "institutionalization of excellence," I think that the article now explains the importance of that. Please review latest edits. Also, please check out Colonel Dupoy's book, "A Genius for War." I read it 20 years ago as a junior officer and it remains an excellent work. Also, it might prove useful to add your comments to the discussion section of the article itself. SimonATL 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
HL - I really haven't poked around Wikipedia on subjects such as the German Army, Prussian Army, etc. Thanks for your comments. Maybe we should back track and consider the plight of some high school kid who might have watched "Saving Privat Ryan" and gotten interested in the German Army. I'm trying to think about how to introduce such people to the subject of the military, in general, to military organization, ranks, branches, specialties, staffs, generalship and things along that line. I'll keep thinking but maybe I'll start by doing more research on wiki articles in place and take it from there. As a young staff officer in the US Marine Corps in the late 70s, I was shocked at the ignorance of my peers on these subjects. The Marine Corps had no concept, at that time, of introducing even its own junior officers to an intellectual or thinking approach to military subjects. Marine Corps Commandants beginning with Al Gray, (interestingly, a former Korean War sergeant with no college degree) began to reemphasize military education. General Krulak took it further, having been raised by his dad, another Krulak general (3 star) and quite a man of letters. Maybe you already know all about this. I'm just trying to give you a little background. I too was a young high school kid, interested in military and political/military affairs but an Ohio farm boy with a dad who knew no more about the military than his own personal experience as an enlisted sailor in WW-II. So I'm thinking how best to introduce someone like myself, young or old, interested in the military and history and theory of it all. Military Science and History goes beyond just biographies of interesting historical characters or particular battles. Historical characters and battles was all I read about as a kid, having no further point of reference. Hope this shows you where I'm coming from. Simon - SimonATL 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
re Fred the Grosse, I meant to refer to Frederick I of Prussia, King "in" Prussia not Frederick the Great - glad you caught that. That's one of the things that's about wiki with its multiple editors always improving and correcting - well, at least in theory!SimonATL 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 195.92.168.168 lifted.

Request handled by: JDtalk 20:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue

Why did you assume that the comments of the other members on Willie Rushton's singing here were superfluous? It's quite in keeping with the style of the article, and well known as a running joke in the series. Care to explain? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It was I who added the comment in the first place, and I thought it was perhaps too much information on the subject of musical gags. By all means restore it, if you think it worth retaining. HLGallon 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Ladysmith

Largely in part to your expansions to make this such a quality article, the anniversary of the siege appeared on the Main Page "On this day..." on February 28, 2007. You are hands down one of the most unsung contributors of the history project, and I'm glad you like it that way. Teke (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Marston Moor

Thanks for your message, and I agree 100%. The removal of the previous references was simply because none of the information taken from them was cited in any shape in the article; though it was definetly my intention to locate these books, and others, that dealt specifically with the battle and reincorporate the information with the apppropriate citations. The twenty footnotes of the those ten pages do, I confess, seem a rather large amount but heavy citing is the norm in likes of several featured articles on battles - even when a few pages are being used. It wasn't my attention to take ownership of the article in any shape or form. I hope we can work together on improving the article further, and I will also avoid such major edits in the future without consultation on the talk page. Qjuad 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to locate a copy of Young's book and have begun re-incorporating the text I removed with citations, though I confess my current efforts are rather crude. You were definetly right about Young and I ought to have gotten hold of a copy prior to my re-write. I thank you for your patience and advice. Qjuad 13:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of images for both the York March and the battle itself, the images located on this web page are released under the Creative Commons license so it shouldn't be difficult to get permission to use them if no other alternatives crop up. However, I'm not sure how accurate they are (if at all). Qjuad 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I put up the article for a peer review over at the military history wikiproject for suggestions on further improvements (the review). Other than the obvious point regarding adding maps sometime, mention was made about citing the exact pages of Young and Woolrych. Whats your opinion on this matter? Qjuad 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 195.92.168.163 lifted or expired.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your work on Indian Rebellion of 1857

I am sure this editor deserves a loud thanks for doing a great job in the article so far. I have seen the edits word-by-word (to be honest I feel, any edit on this article automatically raises suspicions on either side of the arguments :) and I am sure all would agree to the fine copy-editing of such a contentious article.

Thanks once again, --Bobby Awasthi 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I am sure you deserve that praise because you walked really well on a very fine line. I can understand the difficulty in getting Indian POV or sources since they are limited to native press not quoted in English press nor read by english speaking (so-called) gentry of India. There are few Indians to break into that feudal class (which wants to retain the monopoly ever since British times). Those Indians who are new English speakers but have a better understanding of ground realities are collectively tagged as Hindu Nationalists. To be honest I cannot recollect even a single english source from contemporary India that would give you the other side of story. We depend on Indian language newspaper sites which keep running series on such events (currently 1857 as it is 150th anneversary) and where local university professors publish their researches based on clandestine nationalist press of British times which became official only after 1947 albeit only for decorating the libraries. --Bobby Awasthi 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Campaignbox First English Civil War

I thought you might find this useful to know. It caught me out. I could not at first work out why there were two pages with apparently the same name but different information! See User talk:GlosterBoy#The Battle of Brentford. But in the end it came down to this small mistake [2] --Philip Baird Shearer 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

We are holding a vote to move name of article from Rebellion of 1857 to War of Independence. If you feel strongly about either one, please come in and vote. Jvalant 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utterly irrelvant, but...

It's nice to see another orbat.com reader editing Wikipedia. --RaiderAspect 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of MHDOIF

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on MHDOIF, by WWGB, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because MHDOIF seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting MHDOIF, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate MHDOIF itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of York

"By chance, another ship-rigged vessel, the Prince Regent, which carried 16 guns, had sailed for Kingston two days before the Americans had been sighted."
Please provide a citation for this. Atrian 00:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles W. Humphries, The Capture of York, originally published in Vol. 51 of Ontario History, included in Morris Zaslow (ed.), The Defended Border, Macmillan of Canada, ISBN 0 7705 1242 9 ;

"The British ship they sought, the Prince Regent, had taken leave of York for Kingston on April 24."

The Prince Regent mentioned is the vessel which later became the schooner Sidney Smith, not the 44-gun frigate HMS Prince Regent (1814) completed at a later date. HLGallon 01:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{INA stub}}

Hi HLGallon, wonder if you can help. I created a stub for articles to with Azad Hind and Indian National Army, and it has just been nominated deletion on what I thought were more to with MoS grounds rather than substance and importance of the content. I don't know wether you know anything about this at all, but if you do (or if you have any comments), could you please have a look here. Cheers.Rueben lys 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Havelock

Thanks. There's a fully reply on my page -- Barliner  talk  11:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Imphal and the Manipur campaign

Hi HG, You seem to be generally involved in some of the articles dealing with the Imphal-Manipur area during WW II, and the Burma campaign. I was wondering if you could comment on this, I remember reading from more than one source that Kawabe was actually relcutant (at least initially) to start the Imphal campaign at all, and was only convinced to do so after Subhas Chandra Bose convinced him (or his superiors, I an't remember clearly now) that it was neccessary to start this campaign, and was the Indian soldiers and population learnt about the INA, India would rise against British forces, ie, the Ledo road was probably as much an important target as much the Pollitical success of Bose's army and government, and would also secure the Eastern Frontier with minimal fighting. This is just something I remembered and wondered if this should at all be mentioned in the Imphal article. The other thing was, and on this I am quite sure, that the reason why the Japanese forces did not start withdrawing earlier was because of the pressure from Bose on Kawabe to press on for the capture of Imphal. I do think this might just deserve a mention.Rueben lys 16:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC). PS:Thanks for sorting out the relevance and adding accordingly, much appreciate your help.Rueben lys 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Impossible

See comments on the talk page of the article about tape speed/direction and dubbing of voices. Regards. Edison 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kohima

Hi HG, I noticed you deleted the INA from the combatants in the Battle of Kohima article summarising that it wasn't involved. I am pretty certain the INA was involved, although I am not 100% sure here. But I am fairly certain both Peter Fay and K.K. Ghosh says the INA was involved in Kohima, alothough in a smaller scale. This included both Shah Nawaz Khan's units, as well as the Bahadur group. I will check and get back to you again, but could you have a look at your sources as well please. CheersRueben lys 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do, but the "burden of proof" lies on the claim; it is not necessary to find sources to state that the INA absolutely did not fight at Kohima. Allen, in Burma: the Longest War refers to the Japanese 31st Division sending "propaganda squads" into Chin and Naga villages ahead of the advance but does not state their nationality. Shah Nawaz Khan reached Ukhrul (30 miles south of Kohima) only in June, by which time the Japanese had already abandoned Kohima. HLGallon 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Battle of Lacolle Mills (1814): You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --AW 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War of 1812

This is a wholesale change of material both cited and sourced. I am very disappointed in this edit. Tirronan 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Tirronan on this one. On first reading there were one or two things that you changed that made me go 'Hrm, maybe it was better before' but the vast majority was good, I was tempted to revert the revert myself. Narson 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah I am getting off on the wrong foot here. The orders of Admiral Warren were to the effect that he atributed the losses of HMS frigates to poor gunnery. I don't have issue with the copy edit to correct sentences. However the removal of cited material as redundent I do take issue with. The comments on the US view of the performance of its own Navy were not in my opinion redundent though I would agree to the need to revise the sentence. However much of the article lacks both citation or sourcing. Indeed to such a point that one part of the article takes off in a different direction from the supporting page. Tirronan 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well never mind it apparently makes no difference to you, please complete your edits as you wish. However please check Battle of Waterloo for a more complete citation example. Tirronan 00:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Naseby order of battle

A tag has been placed on Naseby order of battle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Yavoh 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re your message

No I did not take your statement otherwise. I know my sentences take longer to come to understand. Fault is long-winded sentences used by me in writing. In any case, it is still easier to accept any shortcomings on my part or ignore anything amiss, if I do not see a clear pattern of personal interest of proving me wrong on the other side. In case of some editors on that page, it is more than evident that they keep blaming other side as Hindu or Nationalist POV pushers, but want to do the same with British POV. Thank you for being there. And yes, whenever you wish to start your suggested article, do let me know and I would definitely read and suggest. And I have no doubts you would do a great job. --Bobby Awasthi 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Guitargeorge2003.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guitargeorge2003.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) 06:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PurpleGang1967.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PurpleGang1967.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) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:R1D730.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:R1D730.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) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Lake Erie

That IP address reverted the article again. I'm going to request it to be protected. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. The reverted changes violate WP:V and WP:NOR. HLGallon (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DropTheDeadDonkey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DropTheDeadDonkey.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) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Lake Erie

Not at all, its a problem I can well relate to. The main point I wanted to get across was just how complicated it can get when trying to classify ships. All sorts of criteria were used at the time, and most of that inconsistently. Earlier today I was dealing with a naval architect and shipwright of the period who signed his own name with three different spellings at different times, apparently depending on his mood! Also today, I moved several ships about owing to a confusion over the names, where some sources refer to an HMS Bonadventure (a name never used in the Royal Navy, the writer was thinking of HMS Bonaventure), and instances where Montagu and Montague, and Lennox and Lenox have been mistaken. That's not to mention the occasions where HMS Ripon and HMS Rippon can be confused! Ship classifications of this period can similarly be a nightmare, with any number of criteria being applied. As you've pointed out, the actual participants at the time sometimes seemed to be in two minds over what type of ships were involved, and the fact that terms often overlapped adds another layer of confusion. In short, the best way to get around all this (I've found) is to take one, or better still a number of authoritative scholarly works and use their terms consistently, sourcing thoroughly where appropriate. Benea (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Army

Please see Talk:British Divisions in World War II#British divisional article titles --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making additions to the 14th Army OOB, but no doubt you are aware now that I'm disputing the legitimacy of post-1947 Indian and Pakistani armed forces to unit linages. Because the convention is to add name of the nation in brackets, and (India) signifies a post-1947 state, your additions for the pre-1947 are incorrect. However, what should be in the brackets, as pointed out by Philip, is also a matter of dispute since the United Kingdom's armed forces were in fact (British). I hope you can contribute to the discussion. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "derecognized"

Hi there, Thanks for getting rid of "derecognized." I might have actually put it there. I remember thinking then, "What an ugly word!" But, I was in a hurry, and was quickly paraphrasing some material from another British Raj-related page, so I left it in. Strangely enough OED does have an entry for it. (It is recent though.) OED 1989 edition

Derecognition: The withdrawal of recognition, esp. Pol. formally by one country, government, etc., from another. 1953 Birmingham (Alabama) News 7 Nov. 13/1 A case for the ‘de-recognition’ of the Soviet government has been made by the Soviet agents in this country themselves. 1977 New Yorker 13 June 77/1 Far more convincing..is the legitimate concern one hears expressed about the psychological as well as the material impact that derecognition could have around the world. 1979 Time 1 Aug. 14/1 (heading) Taiwan: An inauspicious beginning: disgruntlement and protest over derecognition. 1984 Washington Financial Rep. 26 Nov. 853 All accounting standards-setting bodies that have addressed the issue have concluded that derecognition of deposit float is inappropriate.

Hence (as a back-formation) derecognize v. trans., to withdraw recognition from (another country, etc.). 1961 New Yorker 20 May 163/1 What we have to do, then, is not spend money on defense, not pay taxes,..and, above all, derecognize Russia and it will blow away. 1972 New Scientist 21 Sept. 486/3 One advanced MSc course within London University has been ‘derecognised’. Awards for one-year MSc studentships cannot be granted to unrecognised courses. 1980 Economist 31 May 50/3 The Russians suddenly discovered Genghis's ‘reactionary’ nature and Ulan Bator derecognised him. 1986 Illustr. Weekly of India 13 July 42/1 Yet another important provision in this bill was the power to derecognise degrees.

If this is a copyvio (and it likely is), please remove it after you've read it. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhofar Rebellion

Hey, I just left you a message on the Dhofar rebellion discussion page (sorry it's unsigned) - let me know what you think about itTrouvaille (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military History project

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War of 1812 articles

Sure; I will - they're all on my watch list, which was half the reason for noting them and seeing where I can improve them. If there's a need for the articles/sections to be verifiable then there wouldn't seem to be a problem tagging them appropriately. Please go ahead and take them all off again if you wish. There wasn't any intent to 'publicly denigrate', which just seems a ridiculous remark. Scoop100 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi. No problem at all - I think I was a little 'snappy' in my remarks above and apologise for that. There's some great work been put in to these articles; I really hope I've not deflected you from your excellent contributions which clearly have been much appreciated by others, judging by their comments. I'm aware I'm the NKOTB in this area and may have jumped in a bit too strongly but I'm learning - slowly! Scoop100 (talk) 20:18, 21 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) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCookie

Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just stopping by with cookies for those editors who started new articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: USN ships on Lake Ontario - sources

John R Elting states in War of 1812 Amateurs, To Arms that that during the winter 1814-1815 two 130-gun ships were under construction at Sackets Harbor. I also have another source that I'll have to look up which states the same, however at the back of that book it dopes states that the Chippawa was a 74-gun so there does seem to be confusion. Danwild6 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Howard I. Chapelle states in "A History of the American Sailing Navy" that Chippawa was indeed intended to be a 130-gun ship. It also states that had construction last another six weeks she would have been completed along with Plattsburg and New Orleans. Danwild6 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "debus"

in my 25+ years in and around the military i've never heard the term "debus" except when getting off of a bus. when i was at ft steward, ga (a mech infantry division) we used the term "dismount". but, thanks for not deleting it, at least. rm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hueydoc (talk • contribs) 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


i tried to sign it after posting but my attempt was blocked. hueydoc (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2008 (CST)

[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) 00:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for Marston Moor, image by J Baker

Hi there,

I am working as a research assistant on a book commemorating the 500th anniversary of a London school, the author would like to use the Baker's 'Battle for Marston Moor' in the book and we were wondering if you had a high resolution copy, or could point me in the direction of the original?

Thanks very much for any help,

Regards,

Memphis Barker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.20.99 (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)