User talk:Andy2159

Image copyright problem with Image:USMA-1872.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:USMA-1872.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. Polly (Parrot) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

West Point Sword history 1802 to today
Welcome to wikipedia. I stumbled across your article called "West Point Sword history 1802 to today" awhile ago back; Im the one who changed much of it and added stuff to it. My main goal has been to improve the article any way that I can find to help.

I saw on your user page and some of your initial notes that you are trying to add images to the article. I agree adding images of the swords would enhance the article. Unfortunately, I can't help you with how to add them, because I have never added any images to articles my self. It looks to me like you got them uploaded ok; you just have to figure out how to list the copyright info.

Good job on the article so far. We still need third party reliable sources for the article to meet the Verifiability policy. I have tried searching for sources(via google) but I can't find much on this subject except your Ebay write up and a few other places that are store fronts, but nothing that is a third party reliable source. Maybe you know of some. Has there been an article in a magazine or newspaper about these swords? Has west point(though not third party, they would be first party) published any sort of material on these swords? Other than that, I think the article looks great. R00m c (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

adoption offer
Hi in the past you've said you'd like to be adopted. I'd be happy to adopt you so please let me know if you'd like that, on my talk page.:) Sticky Parkin 13:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

hi Andy
Hi Andy, how're you doing on wiki? Glad to see you back.:) Sticky Parkin 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

These bits

" Copyright (c) 2007 A. Needle Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License"."

You don't need to put in the articles, just make sure it's on the page about the pic itself. Easy! Sticky Parkin 02:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote on Polly's page (I see from your contributions) that you still can't get it to work and want a 'fill in the blanks' approach. Are you uploading at Special:Upload as I don't think it's too bad? <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 02:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi,

Thank you for cleaning up the West Point Sword story that I've been working on for years, you really did a great job.

I have had just one change to the contents that you can see. I have so many photo's that I've taken and photo's from book's that I've copied but I am having trouble posting because of copyright laws so I add the line that all photo's can be seen at the ebay review see link at the bottom of this page. I wish that I could post them all. I'm work with the West Point Museum to get the photo's from them as well as permission.

If there is anything I can do to make this better please let me know.

Thanks

Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy,
 * Thanks for your note, and your work on the article. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the content of this page isn't a "story"; they are supposed to be clean, encyclopedic articles.
 * Photos that you took of museum pieces may be acceptable for inclusion on the article, but you may not use photos from books. Hope this helps, Firsfron of Ronchester  01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Today's U.S.M.A..jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Today's U.S.M.A..jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim 1357  <sup style="font-family:Times new roman; font-size:small;">talk  22:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Further reply on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 15:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Here is my problem and it is shared at the point, Everything about the sword is referenced as a sword orders, designs, names from 1839 to today refers to this being call the West Point Sword it a part of history, A sword is different from a saber looks different and is in a different class of weapons.
 * The cadets for only the last 10 to 15 years started calling the sword a saber. This was not the case 20 years ago or 50 or 200 years ago it has always been called sword. Someone wants to go back to the start of West Point and change that fact I have to many references like Todd and Peterson who show the facts.
 * The point put out bid's for a new sword and the will be made better than the one they use today and this will also be call a sword by the Academy.
 * The Cadets will go on calling their sword a saber which is new and not correct.
 * This information is to new to be public the only way it can be checked out is by calling the school and talking to a the project manager working on the new issue of the sword, he can be call  Please email me for his name and his direct line.
 * So I have given several references to the fact that it is a sword, the point still has to use the term sword Mark could explain this to you better than I could ever.
 * It's only a saber because the cadets like the word better not because it is one and this has only been going on for 10 years. so it really unfair to change history when there is no written proof that it has ever been called a saber. I am also trying to get paper work showing historally
 * See what I mean.Andy2159 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)andy2159Andy2159 (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi... this is clearly something you feel strongly about! I saw what you had put on the page but I also noticed that you had not cited any sources for the information that you included. I viewed your edits as good faith edits so I did not delete them, but I wanted to let you know that you should include 3rd party sources along with new information added to articles. Suggesting that users email or call someone for verification really isn't all that practical! :) See if you can find a newspaper article or magazine article (perhaps something that traces the history of West Point dress requirements or armaments.  I'm sure you could find something there.  Does West Point have a newspaper of its own?  It's entirely possible that this issue has been written about.  Good luck!   Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Andy.. You might also find this helpful in working on the Sword article: Writing your first article. It is very handy.  Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Signature
Hi Andy... Just a head's up... You should never include your signature ("~") in an article. I've taken yours out of the Sword article. Cheers!  Wikipelli  <sup style="color:#7b68ee;">Talk   03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:West Point Cadets' Sword with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:1872sword.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:1872sword.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I am having a problem entering the information you need, I was told by the Springfield Armory that I could use this image the copyright would be the Springfield Armory NHS and the photo has been in the public domain for years. so how do I enter this information into the correct format?65.35.76.202 (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:1922 West Point Cadet Sword.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:1922 West Point Cadet Sword.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:link to wiki help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests

Your comments about me personally
I've just seen the comments about me that you made on your GOCE request and another users talk page. Given that I got involved to try to help you out in your conflict with another editor I'm somewhat disappointed that you've chosen to criticise me in that way. For what it's worth my comment about dyslexia was a reference to myself, not an assessment of you.

I trust that you'll get what you want from someone else.

ALR (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

dyslexic and other name calling
Do you need to call me nasty names, for not meeting your standards.

Your just a bully

I'll bet it makes you feel important. You cry like a baby, when its you who started this. I have never said anything negative about you. I do feel I should of asked for help a long time age. I feel you have your own agenda. Everything is in print as well as you negative attitude which when read shows you temperament. So you make a charge against me for something that not true. You can add unreferenced matterial or remove referenced. Please, there is no love loss between you and I, in fact I know that the article will turn out much better with out you.

Andy2159 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Andy2159 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Modify image size
Just wanted to let you know, you can modify the size of the image by changing the value "30 px" to some other value. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what you mean by "Tell me this if I put all this effort into it why are you giving someone else credit in the User talk contribs for work that I did?" I am not giving anyone any credit for any work; all I am doing is challenging the notion that a free image of this particular sword could not exist. I need you to either provide an explanation for why a free image could not possibly exist or to upload a free image. You say that "Mowbray publishing gave permission to use" the image in question, but permission for an image to be used on Wikipedia is not enough- instead, images must be released under free licenses, or else they must meet the non-free content criteria. I hope this clarifies the issue- I am happy to work with you to resolve this. J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have a problem.

I'm not sure what you want, are you going to allow the use of this image

All 3 Images that have been approved under ticket # 201205150000691 are the original and best images available to me at the time, the Image is just a higher quality scan both reproduced by me with permission.

Permission by the publisher was requested by me and the publisher gave his approval to you for me to use the images in the West Point cadet sword article. The images are the only proven images found to date. I scanned the images in to digital form and submitted them to you. The correct images would be Ames Regulation 543.jpg. as this is the first and only real copy that can be clearly shown to be the first real Ames 1850 cadet sword in this images from the makers files. Okay, since I took the photo which the publishers said I could use, that you approved it. All I want to know is how did someone Else's name, someone who had nothing to do at all with it except that he volunteers at Wilkpidia, is allowed to remove your name and replaced and replaces it with yours. Please tell me in do you allow you volunteers to do that. All I wanted to do was to replace the image with a better one.. same image better quality all of which is verifiable. I still want to upload a better quality image same photo, I just learned how I could scan it better. Thank you 65.35.73.243 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Andy BoldItalic Embedded fileSignature and timestampLink AdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite

1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg
I got your email and I agree in part. Let me explain I have been working on this article for 4 years or more. I have been working to get the best images released, it took over a year for me to get the copy right owners to release it. The Image that was up loaded was not as good as the Image I wanted to reload to take the place of Ames Regulation 543.jpg I wanted to upload the best image I could make. I also wanted to change the size. The Images that I found, scanned, worked for a year to get copyrights released to you. Then when I have a better image I get a problem. Tell me this if I put all this effort into it why are you giving someone else credit in the User talk contribs for work that I did? Please change it back or let me upload a better image. For what it's worth I would like to upload the same image that was there before with a higher quality scan of that image, along with the correct information in the User talk contribs for work that I did alone. Please let me know how you feel about someone putting their name to your work, even though it's not my best copy Andy2159 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Andy If you looked at the image in the Ames Sword Company 1829 -1935 page 225 you will see Model 543 1850 West point cadet sword This is the only Image on that page that Mowbray publishing gave permission to use.. This is a very important image as it shows that the model 1850 supports images of cadets using that sword years before they were issued. As I said I would like to use the best image, I would like to get more images from Mowbray Publishing, and I will not if they do not look good. Thanks Andy2159 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure why I have a problem. I'm not sure what you want, are you going to allow the use of this image All 3 Images that have been approved under ticket # 201205150000691 are the original and best images available to me at the time, the Image is just a higher quality scan both reproduced by me with permission. Permission by the publisher was requested by me and the publisher gave his approval to you for me to use the images in the West Point cadet sword article. The images are the only proven images found to date. I scanned the images in to digital form and submitted them to you. The correct images would be Ames Regulation 543.jpg. as this is the first and only real copy that can be clearly shown to be the first real Ames 1850 cadet sword in this images from the makers files. Okay, since I took the photo which the publishers said I could use, that you approved it. '''All I want to know is how did someone Else's name, someone who had nothing to do at all with it except that he volunteers at Wilkpidia, is allowed to remove your name and replaced and replaces it with yours. Please tell me in do you allow you volunteers to do that.''' All I wanted to do was to replace the image with a better one.. same image better quality all of which is verifiable. I still want to upload a better quality image same photo, I just learned how I could scan it better. Thank you 65.35.73.243 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Andy

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. 65.35.73.243 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have a problem.

I'm not sure what you want, are you going to allow the use of this image

All 3 Images that have been approved under ticket # 201205150000691 are the original and best images available to me at the time, the Image is just a higher quality scan both reproduced by me with permission.

Permission by the publisher was requested by me and the publisher gave his approval to you for me to use the images in the West Point cadet sword article. The images are the only proven images found to date. I scanned the images in to digital form and submitted them to you. The correct images would be Ames Regulation 543.jpg. as this is the first and only real copy that can be clearly shown to be the first real Ames 1850 cadet sword in this images from the makers files. Okay, since I took the photo which the publishers said I could use, that you approved it. All I want to know is how did someone Else's name, someone who had nothing to do at all with it except that he volunteers at Wilkpidia, is allowed to remove your name and replaced and replaces it with yours. Please tell me in do you allow you volunteers to do that. All I wanted to do was to replace the image with a better one.. same image better quality all of which is verifiable. I still want to upload a better quality image same photo, I just learned how I could scan it better. Thank you 65.35.73.243 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Andy

BoldItalic

Embedded fileSignature and timestampLink

AdvancedSpecial charactersHelpCite

1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg
I got your email and I agree in part. Let me explain I have been working on this article for 4 years or more. I have been working to get the best images released, it took over a year for me to get the copy right owners to release it. The Image that was up loaded was not as good as the Image I wanted to reload to take the place of Ames Regulation 543.jpg I wanted to upload the best image I could make. I also wanted to change the size. The Images that I found, scanned, worked for a year to get copyrights released to you. Then when I have a better image I get a problem. Tell me this if I put all this effort into it why are you giving someone else credit in the User talk contribs for work that I did? Please change it back or let me upload a better image. For what it's worth I would like to upload the same image that was there before with a higher quality scan of that image, along with the correct information in the User talk contribs for work that I did alone. Please let me know how you feel about someone putting their name to your work, even though it's not my best copy Andy2159 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Andy  If you looked at the image in the Ames Sword Company 1829 -1935 page 225 you will see Model 543 1850 West point cadet sword This is the only Image  on that page that Mowbray publishing gave permission to use.. This is a very important image as it shows that the model 1850 supports images of cadets using that sword years before they were issued. As I said I would like to use the best image, I would like to get more images from Mowbray Publishing, and I will not if they do not look good. Thanks Andy2159 (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)  I'm not sure why I have a problem. I'm not sure what you want, are you going to allow the use of this image All 3 Images that have been approved under ticket # 201205150000691 are the original and best images available to me at the time, the Image is just a higher quality scan both reproduced by me with permission. Permission by the publisher was requested by me and the publisher gave his approval to you for me to use the images in the West Point cadet sword article. The images are the only proven images found to date. I scanned the images in to digital form and submitted them to you. The correct images would be Ames Regulation 543.jpg. as this is the first and only real copy that can be clearly shown to be the first real Ames 1850 cadet sword in this images from the makers files. Okay, since I took the photo which the publishers said I could use, that you approved it. All I want to know is how did someone Else's name, someone who had nothing to do at all with it except that he volunteers at Wilkpidia, is allowed to remove your name and replaced and replaces it with their's. Please tell me in do you allow you volunteers to do that. All I wanted to do was to replace the image with a better one.. same image better quality all of which is verifiable. I still want to upload a better quality image same photo, I just learned how I could scan it better. Thank you 65.35.73.243 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Andy

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

I'm sorry, it's like we're speaking different languages here. I'm not going to be doing anything further with this image, and it's not about to be deleted. I'm going to leave it be. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, speaking generally now, there are basically two kinds of images that can be used on Wikipedia. Ideally, all images on Wikipedia would be "free". Free images are either in the public domain because of their age (like old paintings), simplicity (like some logos) or source (like certain US Government images) or have been explicitly released by their copyright holder under a free license or into the public domain. Note that an explicit release into the public domain or under a free license is different from simply being permitted to use an image on Wikipedia. If an image has been explicitly released by its copyright holder, we need evidence of this fact; so, for instance, if it's a photo taken by a Wikipedia user, "I release this" is usually evidence enough. If it's from another website, we will usually be able to see the release somewhere on the other website (Flickr images, for instance, have their licenses clearly displayed). Sometimes, images will have been released under a free license, but the evidence will be in an email; this is one of the things OTRS is used for. So much for "free" images.


 * The second kind of image is a "non-free image". Now, this includes everything that is not a free image; even images which are released under "nearly free" licenses, or images which we have explicit permission to use on Wikipedia. Every non-free image (with the exception of some non-free images owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, like the Wikipedia logo) can only be used if the usage meets the deliberately very limiting non-free content criteria. If they do not meet the criteria, they must be removed, and if they are not used anywhere that meets the criteria, they must be deleted.


 * The image in question was tagged as non-free, and so I challenged it, claiming that it may not meet NFCC#1. If these swords still exist, perhaps there's one in a museum, or perhaps there are out-of-copyright pictures of them somewhere- that was my thinking. If the image did fail NFCC#1 and could have hypothetically been replaced by a "free" image, then it should have been deleted. That is all I was saying; the discussion about the image then branched out into a lot of things, some of which I still do not understand. I hope this clarifies some details about the use of images, and I hope this clarifies my concern with the image in question. If you have any questions, I am happy to help; I'm sorry I've had such difficulty in understanding what you've been saying, as you're clearly a reasonable person. J Milburn (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Cadet sword picture, again
Hello, sorry I have to ask again about this file, but could you please answer my question for clarification at File talk:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg? A brief, simple answer would be appreciated. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note that the above message was not from me- I've left the image alone since I said I would. I've had a look at the OTRS ticket (#2012051510000691- you missed the last number off) and, so far as I can see, there is a release only for the following-
 * Page 161 cadet sword and scabbard.
 * Page 63 U,S.M.A c 1850
 * Page 225 item number Regulation
 * Is this image any of those? If not, new permission will be needed from the copyright holder in order to release it under a free license. If it is any of those (and my apologies if that is what you have been saying, I've had some trouble following), then it can be used freely. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Could you provide a link to the original image? J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry, I mean where you uploaded it. This image is a better version of the original "Page 225 item number Regulation", yes? J Milburn (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just so we're clear, is Image:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg "Page 225 item number Regulation"? J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be honest, I am having a lot of trouble understanding what it is that you're trying to say to me. As a simple "yes" or "no", am I right in saying that Image:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg is "Page 225 item number Regulation", the copyright of which belongs to John D. Hamilton/Mowbray Publishing? J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

reply
Yes, And my sorry for being that much trouble. Andy65.35.73.243 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Andy2159 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Image:Model 1850 Ames Cadet sword compaired to the 1840 Musicians sword.jpg is the name it was changed in to Think I entered the image as Military regulation 542 & 543.jpg it is this image that is the full image, with both swords 542 & 534 under the heading of military relulations on page 225.

Andy2159 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

West point sword
I undid my edit. Happy? The page is difficult to navigate and disorganized looking, especially on narrow screens, because the lead has photos on both sides (something that I have never seen anywhere else on Wikipedia) and the article has an excess of images, but since every attempt I have made to fix it has been reverted, I guess it'll just stay that way. JDDJS (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:MA-1872.jpg


The file File:MA-1872.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:USMA-M-1922.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:USMA-M-1922.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 page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)