User talk:XavierGreen

Islamist protests in Egypt must be considered for these reasons:

1- There are more than 1000 fatalities.

2- They are not only "protests", but also weapons, bombs ecc. are involved.

3- Egyptian Army is involved.

4- There are many similar pages included in "List of ongoing armed conflicts": for example Iraq insurgency, Post-civil war violence in Lybia, South Thailand insurgency and many other examples. In these examples, there are not so-called "wars", but there are violences committed with weapons, and armies and military groups are involved. Its the case of Egypt too. Its not rational to exclude it: Wikipedia is necessary to let remember, not to let forget.

For these reasons, I hope and I wait for you to correct your change; otherwise I should correct it instead of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SigmaK (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Battle of Grytviken, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.165.230.156 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Spyship.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bear Brook (Paskack Valley) 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. Jons63 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Bear Brook (Paskack Valley). If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Jons63 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bear Brook (Paskack Valley) 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. Jons63 (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Caleb-cushing.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on F18viper50: i was that close, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Terrordamaged.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings XavierGreen. Talk:Operation_Enduring_Freedom#Why_is_the_pirate_flag_here.3F

I’m willing to stop removing that flag if there is a strong case not to remove it. Chwyatt (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one 'r' in category. Try Category:Naval battles involving Algeria! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth-Rate covered ships of 32-50 guns from 1746-1810, and Fourth-Rates overlapped, covering ships of 50-70. While there is evidence for both a title of frigate and ship-of-the-line in terms of the Leopard in 1807, I have to maintain its frigate status for a few reasons:

• 1) The general rule of thumb is to only classify ships of 64 guns or more as a ship-of-the-line.
• 2) A ship of 50 guns fits the definition of a Fourth-Rate, as it is within 32-50 guns.
• 3) Most, if not all, source material I have read generally terms the Leopard a frigate. For example, Injured Honor: The Chesapeake-Leopard Affair, the definitive book on the subject, classifies her a frigate. Guttridge and Smith in The Commodores refers to the Leopard as the same.
• 4) A simple search - http://www.google.com/search?q=frigate+leopard&hl=en&start=0&sa=N - turns up more relevant hits for the Leopard in question described as a frigate than a similar search for the Leopard as a ship-of-the-line. Auror (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have written that this was the first surface action of the U.S. navy in the 21st century. I can find no sources to support this statement and suspect it is incorrect. I seem to recall some action at the beginning of the Iraq War between the Navy and small Iraqi motorboats that would predate this. I can't find mention of that either. Do you have any source for the statement you wrote in that article? Rmhermen (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Battle of Wanat, which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BanyanTree 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Blackflag.svg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackflag.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you are planning on expanding the three stubs about the so called Battle of San Juan numbers 1, 2 and 3 of 1898. Why don't you write one article detailing all three? I mean the three minor incidents occurred in the short span of three months. Another thing, I won't interfer with your article, however, I must warn you that you should not remove nor delete any content which has been added within Wikipedia policy from the "Puerto Rico Campaign" as you once did, doing so may be deemed as vandalism. Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Battle of Wanat worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because it resembled the edit of a vandal - a) it deleted information that was already there and previously unchallenged for some time b) there was no edit summary explaining why thie was happening and c) even though this was kind of significant information, there was no discussion on the talk page. This is usually the mark of a vandal.

Then went I went to your discussion page, the prior entry, too seemed to be a warning, confirming my original suspicions. Please, please fill out edit summaries so that other editors might have some idea of what you are up to. If the information has been there awhile and the edit summary really can't do it justice, something on the talk page might be in order. I think you explained it adequately in the second edit summary.

Incidentally, the bot had to sign the message you left for me! Four tildes, right? Student7 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating such stubs, please check out if that information can be inserted into existing articles, such as the Battle of Goma--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with image copyright. You have uploaded Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg claiming

• that the image was taken by the British ministry of Defence and was not under copyright; British documents are typically Crown copyright, not public domain
• stamped a "US-gov", which is incoherent with the stated source (the United Kingdom is not part of the United States of America). Rama (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XavierGreen. Can you provide a source for your recent addition to naval trawler? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can you provide a source? --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Action of 11 November 2008, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on November 13, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, BlueVine (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the article won't pass its DYK nomination, because it is being considered for deletion. Fingers crossed. In regards to me improving the article, you're welcome. If you need helping citing, take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. BlueVine (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Action of 11 November 2008, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action of 11 November 2008. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Concerning Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg, I see you noted at User talk:Hammersoft that "it is under crown copywright which allows the free use of images so long as they are not being sold for a profit". What does that mean exaclty, does it explicitly exclude commercial use of any kind of the image?
In any case, you might want to have a look at the WP:Non-free content guideline which is actually more strict than the US fair use law, and if you are convinced that the image qualifies you can use the {{Non-free use rationale}} template to formulate a free use rationale at Image:PiratesSurrender.jpg.
You probably should ask more specific questions at WT:Non-free content since my understanding of the gritty details of the fair use policy is limited.
Hope that helps, and Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BlueVine (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I reverted your move of Talk:2008 Nord-Kivu war. My primary thinking is that this is a large part of an ongoing conflict; it isn't a simple offensive. That's basically all of what I have to say though. You? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more than an offensive; we've been through two ceasefires and several major developments so far. Compare War on Terrorism and Iraq War; the Iraq War could be considered an "offensive" of the War on Terrorism, but yet it is a conflict on its own. This is part of the Kivu Conflict in the greater scheme of things, yes, but it is still a war. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reference this: [1]? I have not reverted this, but if it doesn't get referenced it might. Also, for future reference, ship names are italicized per the MOS here on wikipedia. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating the discussion involving the Flag icon of Puerto Rico. Now, I ask you to please participate in the following consensus. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may have missed it but the article Battle off Texel has been reviewed at GA and placed on hold. The seven day waiting period for work to continue on the article will begin today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't miss it, my error. Please notify me on the GA review page when you are ready for me to take another look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey XaiverGreen, I just did a bit of editing on Battle of Sa'dah which you created a few days ago, and I was unable to locate the sources you used for some of the numbers in the article. Would you mind adding those in when you get the chance? Thanks. Joshdboz (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add it soon. Joshdboz (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yosemite1892.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Yosemite1892.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Yosemite1892.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hmsleonidas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 06:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Last stand#Victorious Defences --PBS (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SSAntonioLopez.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Terrordamaged.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been spending the past few days, in fact, refining my maps, though to add the Alaska border dispute. I've been trying to figure out the best way to handle this. I think a separate map showing all of the arctic islands as they were claimed would be useful, as this version of the map doesn't have the resolution to handle all the islands. I'll find a way to mention the Sverdrup Islands, though. --Golbez (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for Territorial evolution of the United States I ignore the different secession and readmission dates, considering it all done in one block; the specific changes were addressed in a separate animated GIF of the CSA. So I thought I'd do a separate gif of the acquisition of the arctic islands, and just have them all 'part' of Canada in the main list, with notes at the start that point things out. Though, as you said, the Sverdrup Islands are kind of major, but I still think they can be 'ignored'. Not ignored, but you know what I mean. Norway didn't even claim control until it became convenient for them, so I wouldn't quite know when to mark them as Norwegian. --Golbez (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot finish the Battle of Imbros article by the end of the year I will fail it for completeness. Then you can get more sources and revise it at your leisure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be red linked in here if they were hoax?Starzynka (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is completely pointless tagging them for hoaxes as the battles did take place. Obviously you know more about subject than I do so please correct the people who fought or whatever and help build the encyclopedia. Sorry, I thought you would be interested in them. Thanks. Starzynka (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always interested me how users are happy to create a mess but expect others to clean it up, even berating them for not doing so. Have seen it time and time again in my 4 or so years here. A fellow editor of long standing once suggested to me that creating unnecessary work for others should be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, and I tend to agree. Orderinchaos 14:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil? Or perhaps you should just WP:Assume good faith. Starzynka (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was always a caveat on AGF that one should assume so "unless there is clear evidence to the contrary". That evidence is building. Orderinchaos 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith when i saw the first article, but then when i saw around twelve more with the same exact text i AGFed no more.XavierGreen (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your assessment, the article meets b5 as it has an infobox. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PapeeteDestroyed.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; if you're going to cite magazines, biblio format please. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you did not finish the nomination by placing the proper template on the talk page of Bombardment of Papeete. You need to do this because the template automatically notates the person who places it as the nominator. This is what you need to add to the talk page: {{subst:GAN|subtopic=war and military}} Good luck! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You revert the move, citing the need to discuss changes, then don't even leave a comment on the talk page? Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added "Triángulo Oeste" to List of Guano Island claims, with coords 20° 95′ N, 92° 23′ W. That can't be right, since minutes have to be in the range of 0 to 60. There's something or other at 20.95° N, 92.23° W; is that the location you meant?
—WWoods (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fixed it. —WWoods (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FINALIST

Congratulations on reaching the finals of the Henry Allingham World War I International Contest Thank you for your great performance and your valuable contributions to the project!

1st edition (11 November 2009 - 11 March 2010)

Eurocopter (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. DD2K (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed with you numerous time, and I know you find this interesting, but it's nothing more than an spurious attack ad by a political opponent and does not belong in factual material. It can be added in the Harding article, if editors there approve, or the article about the author of the attack book, but not in factual articles. It does not pass the WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or WP:RS tests. DD2K (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You previously uploaded a map which is used on the article Battle of Bita Paka, however the source is a little unclear. I was hoping you might be able to include the title of the book on the image page if possible (so as to remove any future questions about it usability etc). Thanks in advance. ChoraPete (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again. Please disregard as I have located the information myself. Cheers. ChoraPete (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't simply recreate deleted content. Instead, please add the necessary references and please format the article per the site's standards. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 March 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772), which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

I was given one for expansion, but you created the article in the first place, so you deserve this too! Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been another sea battle. Near the Seychelles. [2] --DAI (Δ) 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting. Although IMO we should divide pirate battles from OEF-HoA --DAI (Δ) 12:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in. New clash http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3870846,00.html --DAI (Δ) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bita Paka Map.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for your recent post at WW2 Casualties

2 U.S. Civilians were killed in the attack on Howland Island in 1941[citation needed],

Thanks,--Woogie10w (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will add source, thanks again--Woogie10w (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reviewed Action of 1 August 1801 and placed it on hold for seven days with several small concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Action of 1 August 1801/GA1. Canadian Paul 02:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know your opinion concerning a proposal I made, which I think represents a decent compromise.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Action of 17 October 1914Sketch.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ActionoffTexel.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to indicate in detail how each of the Non Free Content Criteria WP:NFCC have been met. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Beirut battle.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the main contributer of the article Battle of Beirut (1912). Can you please see my note on the discussion page ? Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you GA nomination was evaluated by me and passed (see Talk:Action of 9 February 1799/GA1). Very nicely done! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Action of 9 February 1799 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 12:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On May 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 9 February 1799, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the "Anti-piracy battles involving the United States Navy category" removed from the Barbary Wars battle pages? The Tripolitan Navy was nothing more than state-sponsored piracy, even on the Barbary Corsairs page it says they were pirates and privateers. --Az81964444 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 386-DX (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Bombardment of Papeete, Action of 1 August 1801 and Action of 9 February 1799; promoted to A-Class between February and June 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK004 01:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for informing me. Bsimmons666 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that this didn't make it this time ... the reviewers seemed to be saying that it was close. Either you or I can leave a message with Nev1 and The_Land to get a better sense of what they're looking for. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has previously contributed to the discussion on merging Sovereign state and State (polity), I was wondering if you would like to comment on my counter proposal. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

On 17 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Action of 9 November 1822, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, XavierGreen. I've read the article that you created about the Third Battle of Manzanillo. It seems to be mainly based in American contemporary accounts. Unfortunately these accounts usually exaggerate the facts. About the battle, it was hardly a decisive victory, since the strenght of the Spanish force, much inferior than the American, didn't suppose a serious menace. The Spanish naval forces in Manzanillo was composed of 3 gunboats crewed each one by 19 men, Guantánamo, Estrella and Delgado Parejo, this one a former American yatch of 85 tons; and three pontoons: the yatch Guardián, whose crew consisted of 4 men, Cuba Española, armed barely with an old Parrott gun, and a quarter ship garrisoned by 39 men also armed with a Parrott. The land batteries had just three 8 or 9 mm pieces. When the American squadron attacked the port the Spanish commander Gómez de Barreda decided to drive his ships ashore and entrench his men around the beach to repell any attempt of landing. The Spanish casualties of the bombardment were far lesser than the 200 given by the article. They amounted to 2 soldiers killed and 5 soldiers and a boatswain wounded. ElBufon (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Rodríguez González states 2 Spanish killed and 6 wounded, plus a wounded civilian, in his La guerra del 98: las campañas de Cuba, Puerto Rico y Filipinas. In the Spanish source used by the Historical dictionary of the Spanish American War, the article of the Revista de Historia Naval, which is included in the book Victorias por mar de los españoles and is too a work by Rodríguez, also 2 killed and 6 wounded are given. In any case both figures are similar. Concerning to the order of battle, it is essentially the previously mentioned: three third-class gunboats, three pontoons and three shore-based guns. ElBufon (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purísima Concepción, Jose García and Gloria were merchant vessels property of the shipowner Antinógenes Ménendez, who was also owner of Guardián before cede it to the Spanish navy. Purísima Concepción was a blockade runner, the other two were old wooden paddle steamers. Centinela, according to Spanish accounts, was heavily damaged and driven ashore by its own crew after encounter the American squadron off Niquero on its sail to Manzanillo, but could be repaired and joined forces with the other ships on 2 July, so it was present during the third battle. It was a 30-ton steam yatch purchased in the United States and armed with two Maxim guns. Guardián, meanwhile, was disarmed to reinforce the remaning ships. The figure of 10 ships was therefore accurate, although it should be noted that they were all small or useless units. ElBufon (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A civilian was wounded. The Spanish commander was Teniente the navio de primera clase (equivalent to corvette captain) Joaquín Gómez de Barreda, although the pontoons were under direct command of Ramón Navarro. About the discrepincies, I should note that according to Spanish accounts seems that Gómez Barreda drove his gunboats ashore, salvaging their artillery and ammunitions, without trying to confront the American squadron. He claimed to "be satisfied of having prevented his crews from suffer an hecatomb". I'll continue investigating. ElBufon (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once more!

Hey Xavier, do you have a citation for SMS Loreley as being a member of the division? Right now the sentence you added her to cites Staff's German Battlecruisers 1914-1918, which makes no mention of the ship. Groner's German Warships 1815-1945 has an entry for the yacht, but only says that she was a station ship in Constantinople, but nothing about her being part of the division. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please reference the inclusion of Lorely. There is an attempt to get this to an FT, so I was wondering if this article should be included. Buggie111 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant specifically her being a part of the division - I don't dispute that she was in Constantinople, but that doesn't necessarily mean she was assigned to the division. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 08:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:German Torpedo Boat.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GermanSeventhHalfFlotilla.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majority concencus has been reached that the war is over you made the change based on this. However V7 again reverted you and I, in an attempt to find a compromise solution, reverted to your edit but added that Coalition combat operations concluded but Iraqi security forces operations continue. V7 has reverted again and now I feel there is no other way to go about this except report him for edit warring or take this to the arbiter with the evidence of the major concencus on the issue. V7 wan't proof that the war is still continuing, I told him to turn on his TV and watch about the deaths of those 60 people in the church yesterday, but it seems he doesn't regard that to be part of the US's war. I told him that this isn't just the Americans war but also the Iraqis. He disregarted that. Publicus also agrees with us.Diefgross (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your last edit, the state department source stated that the "Iraq war is over". If you wish to revert it please find some source that supersedes the ones that I have listed From the pentagon, state department, president, etc. Thanks- V7-sport (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the United States's view of the war, the state department release says nothing of the Iraqi governments view of the war. You have yet to provide any evidence at all that states that the Iraqi government considers the war over. As Iraq is a soveriegn nation, in international law the United State's view on whether or not the war continues is utterly meaningless in regards to the position of the soveriegn Iraqi government.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well since the USA was the last member of the coalition that invaded Iraq it is what is relevant to the topic. So by your logic you have yet to provide any evidence that all that states that the Iraqi government has declared war on itself. I don't want to sound snarky, sincerely, but that is the logical conclusion of what you are asserting. V7-sport (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm trying to get this all on 1 page, let me know if you don't want me to do this) "There are no declarations of war, if thats what your looking for then good luck to you. There have been no declared wars since 1945. If you want proof of combat, that i can provide. But if you are going to argue that i need to provide declarations of war to prove that Iraq is fighting, then you might as well argue that the Iraq war did not take place at all since none of the belligerents offically declared war. Undeclared wars have been fought since the dawn of humanity, there is no requirement among historians that a declaration be given in order for a conflict to be called a war.XavierGreen (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was the congressional declaration of war against the Saddam Hussein regime in iraq. If you can find something similar with the Iraqi government(and I doubt you can) declaring it's actions against the international terrorists within it's borders to be war then by all means include it. Otherwise, to declare the thing ongoing without citations is original research and synthesis. I'm not trying to be a jerk, that is just the fact though. V7-sport (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Ressolution of 2002 was not a declaration of war there is a signifigant legal difference between and authorization of use of force and a declaration of war. The Russian Civil War, the Mongol Invasions, and several of the other bloodiest wars in history had no declarations of war, a declaration is not nessesary for polities to begin hostilities against each other. Ants and Chimpanzees dont issue declarations of war before starting their wars. No polity issues statements regularly throughout a conflict that it is still ongoing, thats a rediculous and unreasonable thing to ask for. As ive stated before there are a myriad of new reports stating that the war is ongoing, and i would think that that is proof enough.XavierGreen (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Joint resolution of 2002 was a defacto and dejure decoration of war. Where are these myriad of reports that supersede the president, state department and pentagon?V7-sport (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to US law a resolution of force and a declaration of war are not the same thing, see 1 for a congressional research report on the issue. The united states has not fought a declared war since the end of world war 2. Globalsecurity.org lists the Iraq war on its list of active conflicts, icasualties.com continues to have an active listing for the iraq war. Both are highly notable and respected sources heavily cited in wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Supreme court which affirmed the Constitutional legality (IE only congress can declare war) in Doe V Bush which stated that congress had given the president the right to "declare war" with the Joint resolution of 2002. Globalsecurity.org does not trump the state department, the president or the pentagon in terms of WP:Weight, indeed, it is arguably not a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a point by point rundown of the situation we are in at the talk page and I strongly belive that this issue can be resolved easily with the concensus of the majority of editors (which there is), however V7 has continued to disrupt both the article and attempts at trying to find a solution (he has not tryied to find a solution and rejected all propositions). He has continued to push his point of view and his view that if the US says it's part in the war is over and thus the war as a whole is over is both Original research and Synthesis not to mention POV-pushing. So i belive that the only way to resolve this issue is to report him to an Administrator. Or if not report him than form an Arbitary commity that will make a rulling on if the war is over or not. I am not well versed in the procedure here on Wikipedia so I think an editor who is should do this.Diefgross (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, I'll look into it. I think the "engagements" is important because many people consider a "naval battle" to have been fought between warships with no exception. I wouldn't agree necessarily but some people are very firm about this.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]