User talk:Red4tribe/Archive 2

Batavian Republic box

I put a few critical remarks about the Batavian Republic box on the talk page of that article. I don't want to meddle with your nice work, so I didn't edit the box.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William the Silent

I have withdrawn this FAC nomination as you seem to have nominated the article for a second time without contacting the principal contributors. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the article has numerous entire paragraphs without citations, and still requires considerable work. Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, and follow through with your nomination of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dutch Empire before nominating another article. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red4tribe, just a reminder that I had already left you a note about your earlier nomination of William the Silent, and to make sure you know that you should only have one FAC running at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright sorry about that. Red4tribe (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the Byzantine Empire

Why are you removing the map of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian? Clearly that is larger than the empire under Basil. It can be seen here

[1]

[2]

As seen by those maps it was roughly that size. Please stop putting inaccurate information up. Red4tribe (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never disputed the expand of the empire. But do you really think that it is a matter of territorial expansion how powerful a state is? The Byzantine Empire reached it peak during the reign of Basil II although he did not succeed in making the empire larger than the Justinian's empire. The function of the map at the infobox is to show the state under its zenith while Justinian made expands at all costs. The empire of Basil was the most powerful state during that time and after all it is not a small state. We have to indicate that Byzantine Empire flourished then. I also never claimed that the map depicts the empire at its greatest extent. Dimboukas (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I talk about "highest peak" I do not mean a territorial peak but an economic, military and cultural. This is why I do not talk about Byzantine Empire under its greatest extent but under its highest peak. We don't have to confuse the peak of a state and its extent (although during Middle Ages they are often considered the same but in this case it is not). I tried to be clear when I cited that under Basil II, the Empire reached its zenith. Dimboukas (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree because most times the greatest extent of a state is simultaneously its zenith. But here it is absolutely clear that the peak of the empire was in 10-11 century. The reader understands that acme of the empire was then. History also teaches this. It is a little bit irrelevant to confuse these two situations. Dimboukas (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there, Red. Just a little friendly pointer from me to you: edit summaries are really good to use so other editors can get an idea of what your edits are about right away. Have a nice day. Manxruler (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dutch Empire

Hi Red4tribe, I noticed that you had nominated Dutch Empire for Featured article status. Several reviewers have left comments about issues they think need to be addressed for the article to meet the Featured article criteria. Please note that the featured article directions specify that Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. If you don't feel you will be able to address the concerns soon, you might consider leaving a note at the page to request that the nomination be withdrawn. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave out poor advice

I try my best to provide good advice on the Help Desk, but with your question about the Royal Netherlands Navy flag, it seems my advice was not so good. The flag geeks over at WP:WikiProject Flag Template seem to have a better way do that kind of thing and backed by the weight of concensus as well - and I happen to agree with them too. Perhaps you could visit the same question again for further advice. Sorry. Astronaut (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pater Patriae

Good work on it! I was babysitting it but not doing well, obviously. Looks much better now. -Phil5329 (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East African Campaign (World War II)

Hi. You recently added a ref to this article citing the Keegan Atlas of WWII. I checked the ref and couldn't find it in my copy. The nearest I get is on p. 50 which confirms the British Commonwealth figure and gives " some 420,000 Italian troops, inclusing Africans, had been killed or captured in East Africa" which sort of confirms your Italian killed & wounded figure by interpolation with the Tucker captured number. I see from WorldCat that there are 6 English langage versions of this book - so maybe we are using different editions. Could you either change the page # or if it's correct in your edition, provide more book detail in the ref (ISBN?) to clarify matters? Thanks Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also slightly puzzled by the map on the preceding page (p. 50) titled 1/AFRICA 1940 which shows Italian strength in East Africa as 100,000 European troops and 150,000 native troops...which doesn't add to 420,000 There may be a logical explanation to the discrepancy although I have previously found a number of errors in this book. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your response. My source material always goes on about how the Italian East African Empire was isolated and therefore unable to resupply or reinforce from Italy or other colonies...so the discrepancy remains a problem. By the way my ISBN is 0-7230-0317-3. So they are quite different! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it now. Your's is the Collins Atlas of WWII and mine is The Times Atlas of WWII. The Times version was published in 89 and reprinted in 94. I wonder if the Collins version corrected all the mistakes? To give you an example, if you look at the map of the Syria Lebanon campaign (Syria, Palestine and Iraq) my version has:

1. 7 Aus Div, a Free Frenxh Brigade and 1 Cavalry Div advancing east of the River Jordan towards Damascus. Actually it was 5th Indian Infantry Brigade and the Free French which did this. The Aus Div were on the coast advancing from Jaffa towards Beirut.

2. It shows Habforce setting out from Abu Kemal. Actually it set out from the desert near Rutba and having reached Palmyra sent patrols to capture Sab Biyar and Sukhne.

3. It doesn't show at all the force of four battalions (the major part of Indian 17th and 20th Brigades) operating in Northern Syria in the Bec du Canard.

Otherwise it's fine....!! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help

You with that guy who keeps putting, "British tactical victory". InternetHero (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.15.56.93

Red4tribe, you appear to be making edits from your IP address again. I hope you are not engaging in sockpuppetry. Also, whilst this page is "your" talk page, the talk page on 76.15.56.93 is not "yours". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that says I cannot make edits from my IP. I'm not doing it to get around anything, and I am allowed to blank my page if I please. 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it is not your page, as you will discover if your ISP reassigns you a new IP or you change ISPs. This is your page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is if you're blocked, which you were on June 6. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My block ended on June 6th. Red4tribe (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please either provide valid examples as to how "Dutch Acadie" was a valid dutch colony or remove any reference to it being one.

You have yet to date to provide any valid examples that would make "Dutch Acadie" a valid colony.

Under teh defination of a colony "In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." "Dutch Acadie" does not met this standard, nor does it met the standard set forth in any example you have produced, or I can find in my research.

I will be seeking a neutral thrid party to review that matter and I hope, nay, assume you will appreicate and respect said opinion but from my experience I doubt that you will.

-Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Dutch Occupation of Acadia and Template:Dutch colonies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 04:48 & 04:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for The Hague

The copyvio claim appears to be valid. The concerns raised by Jappalang on the Talk page do not appear to have been addressed in the latest revision. Note: I'm not getting into an edit war with you, but the article is listed on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_June_20/Articles. -- Robocoder (t|c) 17:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been blanked pending resolution of this issue. Please see the talk page of the article and contribute there or at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 June 20/Articles. Do not restore the contents of this article or remove the copyright tag pending resolution of this. Copyright concerns are serious legal matters, and Wikipedia must exercise all due diligence in addressing them. We appreciate your cooperation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Battle for The Hague

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Battle for The Hague, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?url=/battle_for_the_hague.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Battle for The Hague and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Battle for The Hague with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Battle for The Hague.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Battle for The Hague/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Battle for The Hague saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Battle of Trenton

I have responded at Talk:Battle of Trenton/GA1. Gary King (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the work on the siege of Boston. I've done a bit lately as a side job of trying to get the fortification of Dorchester Heights in shape. Could you make an additional change please? You reference McCullough but there is no mention anywhere of which book you are using. WikiParker (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{helpme}}How can I organize my user page so it doesn't look so weird? Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that you forgot to close one of your tables. I did that, but I don't think it is formatted correctly. If you can't figure it out, can you tell me what you want it to look like? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the table, but I can't figure out what is up with the stray code being there. I re-added the helpme template so that someone else can have a look at this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. To whoever reads this next, how could I organize my userboxes underneath it, so they are seperate from the work list?Red4tribe (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting all your userboxen in {{Boxboxtop|Userboxes|left}} and {{boxboxbottom}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also put them in a different collapsible table. This table I will show you, if you so wish, has different colors in it which you can change if you so wish. Reply underneath this message which method you wish to use, mine or TenPoundHammer's. Thanks and Happy Editing Tm93 TALK 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red4tribe, I fixed the extra code that was hanging in there. As for arranging your userboxes, do I have it right that you want the userboxes underneath and outside of the the Show/hide "current work list", but all aligned to the bottom right? I'll look further into this one and try to get the userbox formatting to work something like what you were saying. Jamie^☆S93 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The userboxes are now outside of your "current work" collapsible border, so I think it looks better now. Jamie^☆S93 19:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it looks much better now. Thank you all very much. Sorry for the slow response, my computer was acting up. Red4tribe (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seige of Boston

Hello, Red... no problem with the clean-up. I was recently looking into the Seige of Boston myself and I'm always willing to help. I'm not expert on the normal procedures on military/battle articles but I know there's a Wikiproject that could probably help. My personal intuition tells me to keep the Battle of Bunker Hill casualties separate but included (i.e. x number of casualties, plus another y casualties at the Battle of Bunker Hill). Does that sound reasonable? Best of luck to you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much indeed for your help with and commitment to Tag & Assess 2008. May I please trouble you to comment at the post-drive workshop? Your feedback will help us to improve the next drive. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812

One of the more interesting books is Six Frigates Ian W. Toll, stick with the later authors for the most part, they seem to have less of an axe to grind. Tirronan (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of North Point

I have concerns with the broad use of a single source in the Battle of North Point article, which you recently edited. Please refer to the article's talk page for details. Thanks. —Adavidb 20:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nom on Hold

Hi. I reviewed Siege of Boston and there were problems. I listed them on the talk page. Tell me when you want me to check up again. Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. Thanks for clarifying that stuff for me. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 02:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bornemann 1812

One or two point regarding the degree to which you have cited this work. Firstly, you have incorrectly formatted the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) template. The author's first name is "Walter", or "Walter R." if you wish, it is not a repeat of his first name. You have replicated this error across four or five articles I have found so far. Secondly, in several cases you are relying on him for casualty figures which sometimes disagree with already-cited figures in the body of the article. Some of these cites e.g. J. Mackay Hitsman, are very close indeed to authoritative primary sources, and without having the work readily available (in the U.K. anyway), it is difficult to see what primary sources Borneman is quoting. The web information on this author suggests the possibility of POV issues. Finally, I wish you would improve your own standards of English where you modify the body of articles. For example, after twelve of your edits, USS United States vs HMS Macedonian is barely a literate article.HLGallon (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]