User talk:Marc29th

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a member of WikiProject New Hampshire, which seeks to expand information about the state. Please feel free to join us.

Contents

[edit] John Lovewell (Junior)

Aside from the fact that he once used them, why is John Lovewell (Junior) listed as a "see also" in Snowshoes? I hope you'll keep working on cleaning up the Lovewell article - he seems like an interesting guy, but the text reads like it was written in 1730. -Willmcw 01:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Marc29th, welcome to Wikipedia. I saw your addition of the Royalton Raid pages and I'm glad to see people contributing content about Vermont and I encourage you to be bold and add more. I hope you enjoy it here. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Mel Etitis (who I borrowed some of this greeting from) has a new user talk page where he answers new user questions, or feel free to ask me or any other friendly faces around here. Jessamyn 03:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
  • Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
  • You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

[edit] New Hampshire Regiments

No problem, you think of joining the New Hampshire Wikiproject? Check it out!

I created the New Hampshire Militia page, but was uncertain of the association between the Militia and the Regiments. Also, do you know of the Militia and the Volunteers are one in the same? My goal is eventually bang out the New Hampshire National Guard pages. Assawyer 00:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. You might be interested in the NH Army National Guard's history document: http://nharmyguard.com/documents/forPublic/NHPAM%20600-82-3.pdf There's some good info there! Assawyer 00:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the New Hampshire Historical Markers! Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Jokermage and I approve this Wikipedian! Paid for by the Jokermage for Chief Librarian Campaign.

Almost forgot the best part! For your continued contributions to New Hampshire history articles, I give you approval! {{User:Jokermage/JM-Approved}} Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 04:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


I am having a debate with myself over the naming convention of the NH Civil War regiments. Take the 1st for example. I have seen: 1st New Hampshire Volunteer Regiment, 1st New Hampshire Volunteers, 1st New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry, 1st Regiment Infantry. In the NH National Guard history, it lists the group as the "1st New Hampshire Volunteers." I was wondering if you could shed some light on the most appropriate naming convention. Assawyer 23:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Assawyer 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! You have contributed a lot towards the New Hampshire Wikiproject. Thanks for all the good work! I am going to try and get more of the NH Civil War volunteer regiments. Assawyer 13:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar of Diligence - wear it with pride

Barnstar of Diligence for so thoroughly covering the Continental Army - from Leifern 19 Jan 2006
Barnstar of Diligence for so thoroughly covering the Continental Army - from Leifern 19 Jan 2006

[edit] I might have some errors in the Continental Army

I am the guy trying to distinguish the ranks of the people in the Continental Army. I may have some errors, in that there is no good resource online for distinguishing state militias from Continental Army regulars. Most of the biographies don't mention which they belonged to, or assume someone is from the CA, even though more research shows they were from state militias. I wish the DAR would put their data online, so we don't have to do all the work that they already did. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can think of a more inclusive category name that would cover everyone up to the point of the US Army. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I must say that it is a complicated project and the more of us working together will complete this project. Any ideals? I got some like - listing the brigades by time periods and a main listing of the continental army by periods. I see that you are more into the british regiments - thats good hopefully by combining the two interests we can achieve some good articles. Oldwildbill 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good ideals. I believe the brigades and divisional (departments for this time period) would more then likely be done yearly, with the units dates of inclusion. I also think their should be articles started for the loyalists units that participated during this time period. It would allow an evening of the wiki to be not just slanted with Americans input. Maybe you can start the stubs like you did for the american units and then I can jump in. I will be out of the net for awhile as I have to redeploy back to Iraq.Oldwildbill 21:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darby Field

Hi Marc -- Good job on the Darby Field article. Could you confirm from your book source whether there is a mountainside meadow named "Darby Field", as added by a recent editor? If it does exist, it would be interesting to know precisely where. Thanks! Ken Gallager 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've gone ahead and removed the statement from both places for now. Even if true (which I'm still not sure of), it's not widely published (doesn't appear in AMC literature, for instance), and it seems a bit too whimsical for the articles it's gone in. Ken Gallager 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image:29th.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:29th.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image, and that, just as with all of your text contributions, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can be of assistance or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. MER-C 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9th Virginia Regiment

Hello Marc29th, I again overrode your addition of the link to the 9th Virginia Regiment in the article on the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment because the 9th VA that is described in Wikipedia is not the same unit that was in the Western Department in mid-1779. I'll elaborate. In January 1778 Washington met with a Congressional committee at Valley Forge to discuss the efficiency and organization of the Continental Army. The result was the Congressional resolve of 27 May 1778 that called for comprehensive changes in arrangement of the Army. During late 1778 and early 1779 Washington and Congress gradually implemented the new changes state by state. In May 1779 Washington consolidated existing eight weak Virginia regiments (due to minimal reenlistments) into four and totally renumbered the Virginia Line regiments. On 12 May the 9th Virginia Regt. was consolidated with the 1st Virginia, and the resulting unit was designated the "new" 1st Virginia Regt. On the same date the 13th Virginia Regt. was reorganized and redesignated as the "new" 9th Virginia Regt. The original 13th VA was the unit that was at Fort Pitt in mid-1779, not the original 9th VA. The 13th VA, which formed up at Fort Pitt in early 1777, consisted of men recruited from the western frontier counties of the state for service primarily fighting Indians. A bit confusing, isn't it?

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:29th.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:29th.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 09:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:29th.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:29th.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 21:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair use image use

Re [1]: The image Image:New Hampshire state seal.png is tagged as being used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia. Per our policies as described at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #9, the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted. Wikipedia space pages, such as this project, are not permitted to display such images. I have re-removed the image. Please do not put it back. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. However, willfully violating this policy will not be accepted. Thank you, --Durin 13:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deserved

Image:Bstar 500+.jpg The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one Pseudoanonymous 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have much more than 500+ please don't be offended; I am thinking about

  • The Chain Barnstar of Merit: 1500+
  • The Chain Barnstar of Diligence: 2500+
  • The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour: 5000+

or maybe just for you

  • The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Eliteness: 10 000+

But I have to make them first Pseudoanonymous 19:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Troop Philadelphia City Cavalry

Thanks for your contributions to this article. I added them to the template "US Revolutionary units" under non-state units (they were highly irregular, certainly not infantry). I hope this is OK.--BillFlis 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolutionary War task force

Hello! You may be interested in joining the American Revolutionary War task force, or at least weighing in on the talk page as we discuss organizing categories and similar topics. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 29th of Foot Page

Thank you for your massive contributions to the 29th Foot's page. While trapped here on the other American coast, I have taken quite an interest in it. I would love to share research on the Vein Openers in the American War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Cavalry (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Col. John Hart.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Col. John Hart.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)