User talk:Lepeu1999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Lepeu1999, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mushroom (Talk) 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 1st SS Brigade

Just as a point of interest, while your edit at Battle of Normandy was quite correct, it is not uncommon to see the British Special Service Brigades abbreviated as "1 SS Bde", for instance, on maps. The Canadian official history does that, and even abbreviates it in the text as SS Bde - however, on Wikipedia it could be a source of confusion and you were correct to spell it out in the text. Michael Dorosh 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't have the sources with me anymore...

So, basically, knock yourself out.Serendipodous 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kongsberg Colt in German use

New to all this, so i dugg up some sources but seem to be unable to add them properly.

Anyways it is mentioned here; http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1374 , here; http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/pistolen.htm and i can probably digg up some more if you feel the mere mention of it is not enough (not that i blame you, i'd be questioning it as well).

Though the list cited on www.axishistory.com says specifically not all weapons were used, the list on www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de list is fairly slim, with what to me appears to be strictly issued weapons.

Hope i'm doing all this right, i am as i said new to all this. Martin Sandbekken 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Private Ryan

I understand you intended to move that section, but if you compare your edits before my reversion of one of them, you see that of the three paragraphs under 'Development', only the first was moved, the other two were deleted. [1]. Edward321 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. It's just that almost every movie FA/GA has a descriptive list of characters, and that Development section that IS needed. I don't know if I can search for articles, create/improve whole sections and watch the DVD for more info as I did in some article that is now a GA[2],but since SPR is my favorite movie and also an important film, we need improvement. igordebraga ≠

Sorry, some of those mistakes in the Character came from me not really being an expert in military, and also English not being my primary language. There are two things we can do to make a Development section and other improvements, search for articles about the film and its production (I did it for Aladdin and Minority Report[3][4] , both GA now) and watch the DVD(which I don't have), since it seems to feature lots of extras. Hope we can get to GA status soon. igordebraga ≠ 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, those two aren't in the "character list" ones (MR doesn't need, and I want one for Aladdin, but I can't find an all-character picture to replace the ones in the table). But don't go saying I'm on other people's work - maybe in MR, but I improved the Reception and Development, and after the GAC, created a "Adaptation differences" from scratch. But Aladdin, it was a mess, with Trivia section and such, I made a Production, Reception, Music, Home Video and organized the things that were already there. And another article, that if you don't like video games may not interest, I'm the biggest editor, and made all that was needed to improve to GA. I'm not a big and respected Wikipedian, but I never said to be superior, don't go despising me. And since you want a Peer Review for SPR, I'll start it for you. igordebraga ≠ 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Vandal

Thanks for reporting, however, next time, please use this page instead when reporting a vandal, since I'm not online all the time, and if the vandal is active, that is the most suitable page to report it. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of his edit, he is already blocked after he made that vandalism. The block has not expired yet, if you look at the timestamps of his edits since he was blocked after making that vandalism. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)




[edit] harrassment

Don't change the damn Saving Private article. That movie is propaganda and that's a fact. --Dominik92 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The above was added in the middle of a comment by another user. I've moved it so it won't be confused with that other comment.--Lepeu1999 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War II infantry weapons

Hey ive seen youv been working on that artical a lil, and i was wondering should private purchases be included? (Esskater11 02:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks

Aloha Lepeu, thanks for your kind words on User:JereKrischel's talk page about our (mostly) civil running battles. It's hard sometimes (today wasn't good!) but speaking for myself at least, even at our most pugilistic I always try to act honorably and with respect. Anyway, thanks. Arjuna 09:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Saving Private Ryan

No; I'm not a bot, I'm an admin with a tool for automatically deleting links to articles that I delete. So yes, I'm sure that the links I delete really are links to deleted articles, but I will try to double-check the articles that contained those links in future for additional vandalism. Cheers, Waggers 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Invitation

 Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

[edit] Re:Ryan

Problem is, that's not Spielberg's response. But I trust in your stewardship of the article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar/grammer

If it were two of the men..., it would be survive, but when it's singular it should be survives. - Dudesleeper | Talk 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound right to me, but go ahead. - Dudesleeper | Talk 11:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halsey

Really? I didn't realize I had deleted sourced stuff -- I'll go over it again and check it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)





[edit] WikiProject Boston Red Sox Newsletter for April 31, 2008
The Boston Red Sox WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 9 • April 31, 2008 • About the Newsletter
News

Project and team news:
Features

Featured Red Sox articles of the week:
New Articles

New Boston Red Sox related articles:
Archives • Newsroom

The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier. 00:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World War II userbox

This is an announcement to those interested in World War II that a new userbox {{User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes/World War II}} have been created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

I'm not sure where you got the idea that creating redlinks is a bad idea from - it's not in any style manual I've encountered!

Creating a dead link is a bad thing if it's dead because it ought to point somewhere else, or if it'll never point to an article. However, it's fine - and it's been encouraged since day one - to create a redlink where the target will eventually be an article. (cf/ Wikipedia:Red link)

Hope this explains things. Shimgray | talk | 16:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's considered a plus, shall we say :-) Otherwise, though, it's just building the web - making sure the links are there to slot into place when the article does eventually get created. Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Not in and of themselves, really. They're just... nice and simple and short, you know? Easy enough to knock one out in a spare half hour or hour, and another link goes in the chain. (Plus, it's good to have a topic no-one else is working on, and where actually cracking through and completing it one day, that old goal of 100% coverage, is conceivable) Shimgray | talk | 20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)