User talk:TomStar81/Archive 6

4629:

uncontroversial so as to avoid deletion review. I can't stop people from participating at an AFD. I can't stop people from improving an article to save it, and nor would I want to. I can't form a one-man consensus and I can't stonewall a large consensus to keep or delete an article. I can't stop anyone from re-creating an improved version of the article, or stop them from userfying the article in the meantime. I can't deprive a WikiProject of a much needed editor. And I can't bring anybody back if they want to leave, although I wish I could. I can't do much to upset the balance of Knowledge by myself. If anger will bring TomStar81 back, I encourage him to be angry at me and make it his Knowledge mission to prove that I'm a buffoon. If peace with me will bring him pack, I let him know that this isn't personal, and I wish him the best. I'd advise him to ask for userfication of the deleted article, fix the issues, and recreate it when it's ready. Maybe take a deep breath, count to ten.

4010:

feel the need to go through and alter every instance of the appearance in the articles becuase that would entail the addition of a lot of commas which might increase the page size, which in all cases is learge enough without the extras. The exception, USS Iowa Turret Explosion, was created a few monthes back from indepedent sources, and the odd fix of dates will likely be corrected in the coming monthes as Cla68 is preparing to rewrite the article ahaed of an FT push for the Iowas. Lastly, on the issue of delink dates: According to my watchlist, Tony1 has recently been using some sort of automated process to unlink the dates from the battleship articles. Although I have no proof of this, I would assume he does intend to get around to the class articles, if not, then you might consider dropping a line on his talk page to request he use his auto-thingy to delink the dates.

4562:

of the chance he may have had to put forth alternatives, or worse, to upload something for the page that he may have been working on offline. If you look at his afds, Tom here was the one largely responsible for articles as they currently are (which as a C&C fan I was thrilled to see), and he took the loss of several of these articles in 2005 very personally. I am quite certain that given his article development track record he may have had some idea of how to improve or carve up the article to save relevent information. At the very least, I am sure he would have appreciated a chance to participate in the afd.

1999:

could try using the automated tool i referred to, which should work pretty well in identifying specific overlaps of text in these cases. I would expect to work in 2 steps: identifying overlaps by putting quotes around them, and then editing some to avoid necessity of quoting. I thought that reviewing PD usage made sense in the FAR process, but perhaps there is advantage to trying out tools and process in a lower profile situation. Let me know if you would be amenable. Either way, thanks for being constructive in the recent discussion and for your editing of the

115: 2661:- however, as a former citizen of Iceland, I am aware of the works of many of the musicians Danni has worked with, and they are suitably notable to allow this article to be kept (with, as I said, wikifying, cleanup and an infobox) and made encyclopedic. I am not questioning your judgement, anyone presented with a page full of Icelandic names and no decent sources would probably have done the same thing! I will work on the article later today once I am 100% sober as a judge! Thanks and regards. 4139:

to step on anybody's toes and I did not notice the discussion above (not my job to check others' discussion). I won't try to intervene in your plans since you guys clearly know better how to expand the topic. However, if you need my help with c/e-ing and stuff drop me a note. Ah, and two more things: (1) the last two articles can still be GAs at the time of the nomination; (2) the initial nomination might not need to include them, but they can be added to the topic once they are ready.

35: 2299:: Yeah, I was being nice, of sorts, about the deletion reason. When the article hits multiple CSD reasons like this one (G11, G12, borderline A7), I usually randomly pick one of the applicable reasons. I selected G11 in this case because of the account name used and my subsequent block matched up. In the "old" days of hand entering the deletion reasons, I used to list all of the reasons for the deletion. But these new fangled pop-up menus make multiple reasons harder to do. =) -- 603: 609: 597: 1607: 4428: 3334: 2445: 2638:

offered for a second-opinion. That is not to say that it is forbidden, my personal preference is to wait, though I have deleted them anyway in the past. I remember reading that it is considered good-practice to nominate the harder ones. (If you do delete, remember to still notify the creator about the avenues for redress). So, not a straight answer, as there is no official policy as far as I am aware. Hope this helps, regards.

4391: 3694: 3630:"There are a lot of images in this article. In several spots, text is sandwiched between images (which is discouraged by MOS), and the general prevalence of images makes the article not flow as well. If the number of images could be cut down a bit it would be great. One option would be to make sure there's a link to the Commons category that contains all of these pictures, so that readers know where to go to see them." 875: 594:, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was 5025:"The first SDS satellites were placed into highly elliptical "Molniya" orbits to send images from KH-11 electro-optical reconnaissance satellites back to the DCEETA/Area 58 ground station at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (38d44m10s N, 77d09m30s W). It is possible that some later SDS satellites were placed in geosynchronous orbits and may serve as relays for other NRO satellites, such as Lacrosse." 575: 425: 2129: 2776:. I'm hoping to find an uninvolved editor familiar with the topic, preferably another administrator, who might be able to look at it and more easily identify concerns. Might you be able to lend a hand with that? If the monsoon or other factors make this not possible, please let me know, and I'll look for someone else who might be available. I figure this 4215: 169: 2768:. I probably could have spent less time if the article were more lay-friendly, but I have no background in howitzers, Soviet or otherwise. Some of the copyright concerns were addressed in the article before I arrived. I found only minor additional infringement, which I revised. However, one of the major contributors to that article 4086:(in fact, he mentioned it in the paragraph directly above this one, albeit circumspectly). This is a goal he has been working toward for a long time, and I respectfully request that you remove your FT nomination in order to let him proceed when he is ready to do so. At least one article in the series ( 4561:

Sadly, in this case, that will not work. Deletion review is intended as a extra pair of eyes to oversee the afds that were controversial to some greater or lesser extent, but this one was not really controversial. Additionally, you have deprived Tom not only of a chance to participate in the afd, but

4138:

Don't worry, I did not nominate it. I just created the page and checked if the main contributor is looking at it. Anyways, the way the nomination was created could not have passed (A-classes are not accepted for FTs, be they from the wp:Military history). The reason I asked in the first place was not

3763:

I have spent 200-250 hours building each animation and invite you to take a quick look. This is a completely non-commercial site and I have made literally no money off it (I have a minimal google add just to ensure that google looks at the site I will remove it if it is objectionable - just one mouse

2547:

could be doubled and the class page expanded a bit, but not to the same level (by virtue of summary style). What I've got is quite impressive, but the only article fork I'm thinking about is just of the proposed conversions. It doesn't have much on the radar/ECM, but the sheer number of proposals and

1998:

Also, i wanted to ask if you would be amenable to revisiting any one of the New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Kentucky articles, which you noted "all pull from DANFS in a 'copy and paste' sense" and doing some low-key revising towards removing the need for the general DANFS disclaimer. I

4916:

Great idea with regards to those stars (I had forgotten about Pershing), but I don't think that would work with the userbox. Reason being that an oblong image won't display like the others. I'll give it a try, so the project will have it available for use, but I'm not sure if Kirill will even use it

4710:

Between checking articles that might not meet policy, and trying to find sources that might help an article meet policy, I'm not sure I have time to go above and beyond what our policies and guidelines require. But I'll see what I can do. Glad to have you back, and good luck with whatever you decide

3782:

I asked Hal Jespersen his opinion and he responded: "It is not possible to give "permission" in Knowledge because people can always edit away things others find satisfactory. I have no objection to this link (other than that I don't like the word The capitalized). There are people and robots around,

3771:

But once I did this, a Wiki editor decided I was spamming and began deleting all of the links. He received a response from another wiki editor when he deleted the Forrest link "Hi, Donald. I'm not sure why you think the animated history links are spam, but I restored the one on General Forrest after

3633:

Since I'm pro visual image, I was wondering if you could look at the article as an independent and tell me which of the images you would delete or remove if it were your article. What would you do without doing the "link to the Commons category that contains all of these pictures thing" which I know

1254:

Congratulations! Sorry I wasn't there for your RfA. Started being active on wikipedia like yesterday and stumbled across a thank you message you left on a user's talk page. From working with you in the past, I know that you will be an excellent admin and I do look forward to your vandalism fighting.

545:

Hi, I'm taking this opportunity to thank you for the Barnstar for my contributions to the HMS Ledbury (L90) Article....I did not thank you earlier because of a nasty set of examinations - however, I really really appreciate it; I wish you best of luck for your RFA, and I must admit I'm quite certain

4695:

How about promising that next time you'll remember to leave the creator of the article the message informing him or her of the afd nom? Its just a simple thing, but it can make all the difference, so try to remember from now on, ok? It will help prevent a repeat of this occurance in the future, and

3944:

release on DVD. I'm not putting any significant effort into checking articles that are already FA (since there are other ship-related articles ranging down to Start-class on the list), but I thought you might like to know that these articles are among those selected (at least provisionally) for the

2824:

Thank you so much for your help here. Ordinarily I find articles much easer to compare, but in this was was severely hampered by my lack of familiarity with the subject. (I didn't know what a howitzer was when I first read the article, although I had the notion it was somehow gun-related. Actually,

1815:

I copy pasted this question i wrote on the wikimedia foundation website, i made account there too, for 2 days now i got no responses back, so this is what i wrote, if you dont feel like doing the favor i ask below, you are welcomed to tell me how to fix the problem myself, or just say that you cant

4515:

Randomran, I'm concerned that Knowledge may have lost a valuable contributor over the lack of notice on your part. Whether or not TomStar81's opinions at an AFD would have "saved" it is relatively unimportant, but it would seem that to get a true consensus on this or any other article, it would be

4499:

I respect that you put a lot of work into the article, but I'm not sure there's anything you could have done to prevent it from being deleted. Still, if you could actually find the reliable third-party sources required to address the reason for deletion, I'm sure an administrator would be happy to

3767:

For the last couple of years, I have had links to the battles in the external links page of the specific battles. Once I had enough of the battles done, I thought it might be useful to add a link under a specific general which would enable someone to see all the battles for a general (see wiki for

2842:

It's extremely rude just to delete an article without giving reasonable warning. As I said, the band own the copyright to the text, not the record company - I can send you written proof if you like. Now I have to recreate the article which took me an hour to create as I am not an experienced user,

352:

I had to remove the cquote code from the Socrates quote you added. Unfortunately, there was no way for there to be cquote without it messing up the count for the oppose section. Initially, it was counting yours as an oppose, because you didn't use #:. I fixed that, but it still was causing opposes

4495:

from early this year, which evidently you saw and participated in. That AFD was closed as keep, but on the basis that people believed in good faith that the article could be improved. After a few months, most Wikipedians concluded that the article was simply impossible to improve, and the article

4009:

class battleship already are), although I suppose that as a provisional list this is being treated as unofficial for now. On the issue of the dates: It seems to be DANFS preference to use the d/m/y format common to Europe rather than the m/d/y format common to the rest of the states, and I didn't

3902:

Yes, the explosions in those two ships are discussed in Thompson's and Schoebel's books. Outside critics of the Navy's investigation into the explosion tried to bring up these other two incidents to the Navy, but the Navy flatly refused to consider that they might be related. I'll be mentioning

3584:

I need administrator help to change the name of the article "Battle of Hurtgen Forest" to "Battle of Hürtgen Forest." The locale and the battle are written correctly throughout most of the article, but the title leaves the umlaut off the u. The refusal of the original author to accept an umlauted

2794: 4780:

Hey, I made this award today, although it's been in the planning for a while. Since you're the task force's coordinator I thought it would be best to ask you any questions I had. Specifically, I'm looking forward to making this the "official" award of the task force, and it could be awarded by

3862:

I'll be starting "full-time" work on this article soon, hopefully next week, and it should take a month or two to get it finished. I've already read through most of the sources that will be used, including the Diehl, Schwoebel, and Thompson books. I'm afraid that the article won't make the top

2637:

Ah, that is a less straight forward question. Once again, it is down to judgement: housekeeping ones, plain vandalism, or plain notability ones (My name is Jack, I am ten and I am great) can be deleted of course. The more harder notability ones where it could be unclear, should, in my opinion be

2318:

Nope, doesn't need to go through XFD for a salting. It is applied at the administrators discretion. So, use your discretion, if you think it should be salted, then salt it. I would only go for a short time if it is being protected for CSDs, about a month, depending on the circumstances. I've had

508:

I wonder if anyone has made a nice wiki-spellchecker. My family has a lot of dyslexia and I think anti-dyslexics discourage many bright sparks who would love to volunteer helpful information. I often keep a Wiktionary tab running to check my spelling on problem words or to find ways clear to all

488:

I specifically write in regard to your answer as far as trimming answers go. I understand the importance of trimming answers but I also believe it may be pertinent to leave up the parts that people have already responded to. I was told by a more senior editor that the best way to accomplish both

4178:

I am confused, unable to decide how to promote a couple of really good articles I have come across. The problem in my mind is to distinguish between A-class and GA-class articles. I read the criteria, and all I get is that GA articles meet all the B-class criteria, but we mean it this time; and

2342:

to 1 week. That should be long enough to deter the user from recreating it. There is no need for an indefinite protection of it: you never know, someone might be notable with that name. If the user continues to recreate it after a week, then it could be extended, or the user warned and blocked.

383: 4628:

I still apologize, because I never wanted this to become personal. But I think there needs to be a reality check here. I have virtually no power on Knowledge. I can nominate an article for AFD, but that's about it. I can't delete an article by myself. And even if I could, I couldn't make it so

1621:

TomStar81, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Knowledge community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my

615:

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most

4538:

I'm not sure what else to say, as I already apologized. I suggested that he take it to deletion review if he has reason to believe that the consensus for deletion was false. I didn't intend him to take it personally. I know sometimes there's a consensus for things that piss me off too, so I

1405:

MBK004, you interested in getting involved on this one too? Your experience could be helpful. I think it is of the utmost importance that people be able to express their opinions openly and honestly without having to tiptoe around the issues gingerly (especially at an RfA). Tom's RfA is the

4191:, there is a reason for tying them together, they are good enough that I would not be ashamed to see them as Featured Articles, and no, I have not had any part in creating or editing them.) Any guidance you can give me will be appreciated. Or pass along my request to another administrator. 3783:

however, who object to mass additions of links, so you need to be judicious. For example, adding links to all the generals' bio pages was rather over the top. One link per battle or campaign seems fine to me. But that's just my opinion. B Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)"

509:

dialects of English and I usually work on one section at a time so that I can run previews below to double-check. As long as you type clearly for people with poor English backgrounds (e.g., those with a different mother tongue), I don't see your mistakes as grounds to obstruct your RFA.

1896:

I just want to thank you for uploading the image, I went through a whole other process to make the image. But that is why I made it to hard for myself, when it was not. So thanks to you I think I have learned to make images (me thinks), from now on, much appreciats. Goodbye!

5100:

a start-class assessment, saying that you wished to see more sources added to the article. I have added two more references and many more inline citations since then, and would greatly appreciate it if you took another look at it to see if it now meets the B-class criteria.

2869:

Ok, fair enough, but I still have to spend ages recreating the page. Can you send me the Wiki code from the deleted page so I don't explode. You must admit, it was pretty rude to delete something without more than a couple of second's warning; you are human, and so am I.

4487:

I apologize for not giving you that courtesy. My track record for that is bad. But then, I don't canvass either. I just nominate articles for deletion, put in my two cents, and defer to the wisdom of the consensus. That's just how things go on a volunteer encyclopedia.

2707:

I was surprised to find that despite my understanding of the conquests to have spanned two centuries, this category includes all centuries past the 8th. I really do not want to get into another argument, so decided to just bring it to someone's attention on the MilHist

4933:

I don't think we need to include that article. It is not a crucial part of the entire class history, even though it is related to an event which is. Besides, a biographical article doesn't fit with the rest of the articles in the topic in terms of the type and style.

1077:

Tom, I'm not sure whether you'd be happy to hear from me or not, but no matter the feelings I had about your RfA, you are an admin now and deserve all the mopping you can reasonably do :-P. I'd like to point out there are no hard feelings (never have been) and clear

2843:

just a fan and friend of the band who noticed that they did not have a page. I would be grateful if you could reinstate the article and give me reasonable time to edit it, if you are not willing to take my (or the band themselves) word for it.

4153:

I've added the article I'm writing that is directly linked to the topic. I'm also going to go ahead and brag that I was the one who initially proposed a FT run on this topic to Tom quite a while ago. It's nice to see this come to fruition.

620:. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to 4604:

mhm....we're going to seriously miss you're extremely valuable skills in the next few weeks. I wish you the best of luck in overcoming your wikistress, and hope that you are able to return to the 'pedia as soon as you can. All the best,

3775:

I ask you to look at the link to civilwaranimated.com, validate its value and relevance, and make a note here if you believe that the links should be allowed for Civil War battles. I can then use your opinion to speak to the Wiki editor.

4977:

For showing Wikipedians that fairness can win more supporters than bickering. For handling our disagreement with class: taking a step back, and finding a productive way to express and resolve your frustrations. Your spirit is admirable!

1740:

I had a think about what you said Tom. There come times when one has to question one's sanity when others, many others, seem to disagree. I think this is one of those times, so please humour me as a run through a brief sanity checklist.

3260:

I'm sure you've noticed the notices on my userpage. School has been tough this week and now I've got to contend with the possibility of a hurricane next week. I'm going to try to get back into the groove of things, including reviewing

3585:

vowel because it is not English is the source of the trouble, as the correct form had to have a redirect that now cannot be overwritten by us peasants. And that is why I have to come to you. Thank you in advance for your attention.

3464:

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

2168:

741:

3649:

When you look at the article, do you see any text that is sandwiched between the images? I couldn't see it nor could user CaribbeanHQ and we were wondering if the problem was the resolution of the reviewers computer. What do you

5030:

or the google books "large windowless two-story building officiallt know as the Defence Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity DCEETA, and also known as Area 58. While initially Fort Belvoir site was the only downlink.."

1719:

Actually please postpone the uploading of the image, because i asked a wikimedia commons user to upload it with more details that you dont have right now, but if he fails, i ask you to resume the task with more info, thank you

1694:

section, which im not sure how to do right now, if you can just do this one for me, i promise i wont ask any favors on it anymore, and the please copy paste this as text under the image,(Nearest area to the unknown location of

4024:

Alrighty, the date format doesn't bother me; was just curious. I think I got so used to date preferences that I didn't even notice DANFS date formats - I always just pasted dates in and slapped brackets around them and they

4308:

issue, it was going to get deleted. But just on the really slim chance it was true (really slim), I looked around a bit. Didn't find anything and out it went. As you can see, I left a warning for the editor, too. --

1332:

Sure...wow. I didn't really expect you to actually do it, but yeah. I'm in. I've seen a few ways to do it, specifically, I think it would be best to draft it up & review the entire thing before listing it. Agreed?

2548:

the variations that came true on the cruisers is, in my opinion enough for at least a GA. Coupled with the specific books on the class I've got and the online sources, I'll probably get to work on that instead of

1313:

I've been thinking about it kinda off & on. I wouldn't expect you would want to, but if you do, wanna nominate me? I think it would be quite amusing if someone I opposed turned around nominated me, don't you?

4492: 4678:

I'm not sure I ever declared war on Tom, but what do you think would be an appropriate way offer peace? Should I re-state my recommendation that he userfy the article and address the issues, or take it to DRV?

2552:. The article would have lots of overlap potential with the early guided missile cruisers and converted light and heavy cruisers in the content matter which would also help those articles. Also a bit with the 2099:

hi there. Can you fix the missing refs and get some better refs for some of the self-styled websites. I've started on the ref formatting and and will finish it. The MOS is mostly fine already with teh dashes.

1867:

Thank you for such a prompt and extensive review. I knew I can count on WPMILHIST for extensive help; it's a shame that none of the other WikiProjects I've contacted shows any signs of interest in reviewing

730: 270:

is ready. You now need to answer the three questions and accept the nomination (you can just sign or make a short statement, it's up to you). Afterwards, you or I need to complete steps 8 through 11 listed

3453: 3422: 4000:

I was unware that so many of the battleship pages I and others have worked on were under consideration for the 0.7 release, I guess in part becuase I figured that if selected they would be tagged as such

3883: 3266: 3207: 2157: 4813:

In Tom's absence (see banner), the straight answer is you can just start using it immediately and award it to whomever you wish: there is no official procedure to go through. And very nice it is too :)

3807: 3749: 3159: 3015: 2379:

Tom, as a person whose opinion I regard very highly and a none involved party, I would like for you to give your opinion in a very simple matter involving the "Result" section of the infobox in the

716:

Yes, Maj. Crandall's nickname was Snakeshit. He explains when he first meets Mel Gibson that the name is because he flies lower than snakeshit. Further, you can see it written on his flight helmet.

3511:

Thank you! Time permitting, I'll try to add or improve similar articles in the future, as I've noticed Arab Crusade commanders' entries are pretty good in the French version. Ciao and good work. --

3111: 3063: 2967: 1869: 694:

because it shows the whole area of operations and can tie in not only the landings, but also the later action off Cherbourg (location wise). Is this freely licensed? Remember no fair use at FAC. -

4352:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 3353: 3222:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 3174:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 3126:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 3078:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 3030:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 2982:. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 2134: 442:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember:

4337: 4735:

The Iowa turret explosion article really needs a picture of the 16-inch gun powder bags that were used to fire the big guns. Have you seen any free license pictures of powder bags anywhere?

4055:

Hi. I was looking for some potential topics that may become featured and I stomped onto the Iowa-class battleships. I figured out that they form a potential featured topic and listed them at

3460: 231: 2889:

Thanks very much. Knowledge is a very harsh environment for the new user, I hope it doesn't make the site (and thus the information) too dominated by a few people - that would be very sad.

2519:

The book arrived yesterday. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but glancing through it, there is far more than I thought there would be. I'm guessing that I could double the article on

4059:. I also noticed that you have actually featured most of the articles in the topic, practically making you the main contributor. I don't know weather you were planning to going for the 1970: 3532: 2164: 737: 2825:

I'm still not entirely sure what a howitzer is!) In any event, I do very much appreciate your assistance. It's that kind of spirit of collaboration that makes this project work. :) --

765:

Fixed my !vote. Sorry it didn't work out. Like I said, though, I can see you becoming better quickly and (if this RfA doesn't result in "promoted") perhaps next time you will succeed.

4963: 4274: 3432: 2483: 2610:

is an article that has improved a lot but needs someone experienced like yourself to suggest things to do before getting a good article assesment. Could u please review this article.

526:

Would you be willing to add your name to the category:Administrators willing to make difficult unblocks. There is a good reason for this category and it's being discussed on WP:AN.

3214: 4460:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 5074:. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 3831: 3250: 754: 3477: 3447: 3166: 3022: 2045:

I've tried to consolidate this discussion on his talk page but it can be moved to another location to accomodate further discussion and input from other users. Your thoughts? -

1948: 4774: 4456:

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 "

3202: 3058: 2181: 4896: 4421: 3786:

I promise to be very judicious from this point forward and strictly follow what Hal has suggested. One link per battle or campaign. Your opinion would help greatly as well.

3154: 3118: 3106: 3070: 3010: 2974: 1576: 3801: 3623:

Hello Tom my friend, you know that I'm not a big fan of FA's and GA's anymore, but an article that I have done a lot of work in has been nominated for "GA". The article is "

4433: 4380: 3732:

this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click

1082:

won out. I wish you the best of luck with your newly acquired privileges and responsibilities. If there's ever anything I can do, please don't hesitate to drop me a line!

3933:, which has a mishmash of DMY and MDY). I don't really care overmuch, but it strikes me as odd to see American ships with dmy format; is it intentional? I also note that 4344: 1670:

Hi, just so you know I'm in a hurry, or I would put a better thank you for you. So anyways, great rating and giving advice to me, thanks a lot, I extremly appreciated!--

4363: