User talk:BigRed606

March 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Macedonia (Greece), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr.  K.  06:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
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 OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

''This includes the Teahouse. '' David Biddulph (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sundel Doniger


Hello, BigRed606. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sundel Doniger".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus (consul 467 BC). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus (consul 467 BC). If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Wgolf (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment-I mentioned on the talk page of Tiberius Aemilius Mamercinus, but are they the same guy? I can't quite tell, thank you. Wgolf (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Graf Zeppelin
Please take a look at German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin - the vessel was only 85% complete by the time work stopped on the ship in 1939 (and indeed, parts were removed thereafter for other uses). The ship was never completed, please stop incorrectly stating that it was in the infobox. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Your recent editing history at AT&T shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Gaius Veturius Cicurinus moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Gaius Veturius Cicurinus, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. And the sources need to contain enough information to be verifiable. Please see WP:CIT on how to format citations, and it will also give you an idea of the information needed for other editors to verify the source. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Max Pigeon
Make America Great Again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Pigeon (talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Dates of office
Hi, when you create infoboxes for Roman Republican consuls, you can add a more accurate date in the infobox for their time of office (otherwise it looks like they are in power for two years): they started their term as consul on 15 March. But this is correct only for consuls before 154 BC (it was 1 January after that). See an example here. T8612 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I have investigated the affair a bit more in depths, and it seems that the issue is debated. We are only certain that consuls entered office on 15 March for the years between 217 and 154 BC. Livy gives examples of earlier consuls entering offices at different dates; some scholars have argued that this is late reconstruction, but others think consular terms were not fixed. So it's better not to touch it for now, except for the years 217-154 of course. I will change the dates when I see them.  T8612  (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have found a good source for the dates of the consulships:
 * 1) 509–479 BC: 1 September–29 August (August had only 29 days in Ancient Rome)
 * 2) 478–451 BC: 1 August–31 July
 * 3) 449–403 BC: 13 December–12 December
 * 4) 402–393 BC: 1 October–29 September (September had 29 days)
 * 5) 392–329 BC: 1 July–29 June (29 days)
 * 6) 222–154 BC: 15 March–14 March
 * 7) 153–46 BC: 1 January–29 December (29 days)

I think you should quote the source every time you add these dates in the infobox; it is: Robert Maxwell Ogilvie, Commentary on Livy, books 1–5, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1965, pp. 404, 405. Ogilvie is an authoritative source; there are some historians who disagree, but it is a good starting point. Unfortunately Ogilvie doesn't give the dates for the years between 328 and 223, but I can find that elsewhere if you need them. Apologies for the confusion. T8612 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Titanic II
Hello, I'm Blue Riband. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Titanic II, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. To date no reliable source has reported that a shipyard contract has been signed or that any steel cutting has begun. Blue Riband► 06:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Roman Republic Consuls
Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Category:Roman Republican consuls, may be confused with vandalism. You inserted "August 29" and "September 1" into at least two dozen consul articles without any reliable sources and no edit summaries. Blue Riband► 07:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed the source mentioned by T8612 after posting the above comment. When you make a change to an article it would greatly help to cite your source of information and to make an edit summary.  (I have no doubt that the changes you made were all done in good faith.  But making massive changes in a short period of time with no citations, no edit summary, and all by mobile edit, are very often indications of subtle vandalism.)  There are several templates that you can use to cite the book mentioned: Template:Cite book.  At the top right you will also see links for how to cite web articles, reports, journals, etc. Information.svg Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Blue Riband► 14:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jan Pol (Veterinarian)


The page Jan Pol (Veterinarian) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from http://listcinema.sojackrussell.com/tag/documentary.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review  Girth Summit  (blether)  07:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know I was just creating a article based on martial present in The Incredible Dr. Pol BigRed606 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Dispute
The source mentioned is factually incorrect and the exact area of the Maratha empire is 2,800,000 sq km (1,100,000 sq mi). So don't try to revert my edits. Ayxu 76 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ayxu 76, I think you might be confused with someone else. I have not made any edit or reverts about Maratha empire.BigRed606 19:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of Dexcom additions
Hi there, Would you be willing to review the new additions added to the Dexcom Talk page since you have reviewed content there before? Chistina.mlynski (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Chistina.mlynski Sure what are they? BigRed606 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dexcom

I'm linking the talk page so you can see the updates I've made. Chistina.mlynski (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you make the edits on the actual Dexcom wiki page or the Talk page? Could you take a look at the Talk page that has all the edits I'd like to make and provide our suggestions and edits there as well? Chistina.mlynski (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I'm still getting the Talk pages down. If you could look at the content on the Dexcom Talk page, which can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dexcom and check out the content under the following headers: 'Partnerships' and 'Leaderships' that would be great. If you could provide your improvements and edits under those headers on the Talk page, I can then upload the revised copy to the actual Dexcom page once everything is neutralized. Please let me know if you need anything else and I appreciate your help. Chistina.mlynski (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

A more civil discussion of infoboxes
Hello, BigRed606. Llywrch's weighing in on the infobox discussion on my talk page reminded me that there's a great need for civility in the world today, and that I could have done better in responding to your message both there and on the talk page of Titus Cloelius Siculus. I realize that you put a lot of work into adding infoboxes to various topics, and I should have considered that and spoken to you before I began deleting them.

The reason why I deleted several infoboxes from this and similar articles was this: infoboxes were created to summarize the key points of articles that might otherwise be missed, or require a good deal of searching through articles to find. In some cases they also provide a convenient place for helpful graphics, such as a picture or map, but these things can be added to articles with or without an infobox. The text making up an infobox is its justification for being in an article. As the essay WP:DISINFOBOX explains, not all articles require infoboxes. This is especially true of short articles, in which all of the key details that would go in an infobox can be found in the lead, or other tables and graphics. Just as very short articles don't benefit from having a table of contents, an infobox is only justified if it provides useful information, and makes the article easier to navigate.

Many Roman consuls (and other important office holders) have short articles—short enough to fit on a single screen, or just slightly longer. Usually they also have succession boxes at the bottom of the article: graphics that list the person's colleagues, predecessors, and successors. These boxes are already designed to perform the main task of the infoboxes you've added to a number of articles, which means that the infoboxes tend to duplicate most or all of the succession box, in another location and a slightly different format. Personally, I don't think that succession boxes are all that helpful, and they're certainly no more attractive than infoboxes, and they're less-conveniently placed. But that's how WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome has placed this information in articles about Roman magistrates since the beginning, and changing them over to infoboxes is something that would require discussion at the project's talk page—and would probably require volunteers willing to go through hundreds of articles and convert the contents into infoboxes.

Some of the other information contained in the infoboxes for these persons isn't particularly helpful. If we don't know when people were born, or when they died, and can only guess that it was probably at Rome—which would be the same for all Roman office holders whose place of birth or death isn't stated in any ancient sources, even though we know some of them weren't born at Rome, and probably a greater number than that didn't die there—then it's probably better not to mention it at all. Just as we don't usually mention the family members of historical figures whose family is unknown: it's absurd to read in a Wikipedia article that person A was the son of person B "and an unnamed wife". In articles about contemporary figures, it may be notable if a piece of information usually known about persons is unknown; in antiquity it's routine to lack such details about most people, and it's not necessary, or helpful, to list all of the details we don't know.

The point I wanted to make about the dates is similar to that about the place of birth and death. Yes, we probably know the dates that the annual magistrates usually entered and left office for most of the history of the Republic. But these dates depend, in most cases, on a chain of inferences that, while we can feel somewhat confident about them collectively, don't really tell us whether there was variation from year to year, or whether the magistrates for a particular year entered or left office on that date. Just as we can only guess as to where a particular Roman was born or where he died, we only have a probability as to when a magistrate took office, except in the rare instances where it's mentioned in one of the Roman historians or in epigraphy. It may be a very high probability—but there's still a significant chance that it's wrong some of the time. An infobox isn't a good place to deal with this kind of uncertainty—and you'll notice that, no matter how many consuls or other magistrates are mentioned in most historical writing, it's rare to see anyone mention the date that they probably assumed office. If it's mentioned, it's mentioned once as a general statement about the time period concerned, and not for every individual magistrate; usually their terms of office are described only by the year.

Llywrch mentioned something that might be useful in an infobox—although it could also appear in the lead, as it does in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. The PW number of an individual is useful as a reference number—at least if one has access to that encyclopedia. But it wouldn't provide justification for an infobox by itself: there would need to be more.

I hope that this explains my reasoning better than I did before, and I hope to continue working with you and other members of the project to improve our coverage of Greek and Roman topics. P Aculeius (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of the United States Democratic Party into Northern Democratic Party. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice that some articles related to American Politics are under Discretionary Sanctions
ST47 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sugar cookie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United State. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
― Tartan357  Talk 04:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC) ― Tartan357  Talk 04:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Move request
I started a new move request on War in Iraq (2013–2017), hope you can participate in it Ridax2020 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, I'm Sabbatino. Your recent edit to the page Jason Kidd appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
 * The hiring is not official until the team announces it. Cuban can say whatever he wants until the hiring has been made official by the team on their website or social media. The sources that you provided clearly say "reportedly" or "per sources", which is not official. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I thought that a statement of confrontation from the teams owner would be enough, since he owns the team BigRed606 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SPORTSTRANS describes the handling of sports transactions. WP:RSBREAKING is the general guideline about adding breaking news content. This is usually done for every information added (not just sports). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

About that page move request
Hi, Big Red! About that page move request for Kevin McCarthy, it occurred to me that we should probably reformat it into a formal/official RM. The instructions for doing that are here: That way we get wider and more valid input, which is especially important when we are talking about choosing one person out of a DAB to be the primary topic. That probably shouldn't be done just through local discussion at that person's talk page. As you can see from the history, they handled it as a formal RM when they made this identical suggestion back in February.

What do you think about this idea? If you agree, I think we could implement it by simply adapting your initial request to fit the official format, while retaining the comments that have already been made. Do you want to set that up? Or do you want me to try to do it for you? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kherson Oblast without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 22:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello, I'm 25stargeneral. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2021–2023 Myanmar civil war, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 25stargeneral (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS
I response to I have made what I hope is the correct block anon-only, so you should be able to edit from your account. JBW (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much I appreciate your help. BigRed606 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft
I saw that you swapped Template:Infobox aircraft for the older infobox system at Boeing 737 MAX with the edit summary "Restored correct infobox". Per this discussion, the templates used in the old infobox system are to be merged into and replaced with Template:Infobox aircraft. Is there any reason why you believe the new infobox is not correct in this case? - ZLEA  T \ C 02:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Was not aware of the discussion. Question, why have all the other Boeing and Airbus pages, not been switched to the new infobox? Cause I was using the other page’s guidance when i saw the new infobox, also when the box was switched, it made no reference to any discussion, in the summary. BigRed606 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. I suppose the reason that none of the other Boeing and Airbus articles made the switch is simply that no one has bothered to do it yet.  I suppose we could use WP:AWB or a bot to make the switch to multiple articles quickly.  I'll see if I can figure out how to do it with AWB tomorrow. -  ZLEA  T \ C 04:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, when you say "the other page’s guidance", do you mean the fact that other pages use the old infobox or are you following a style guide? The only style guide for aircraft that I'm aware of is WP:AIRMOS, which has already been updated to the new infobox.  If another style guide exists, it should probably be updated or even merged into the main one. -  ZLEA  T \ C 04:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What i meant is that all of the previous 737 generations all have the traditional airplane infobox. Look at 737 Next Generation, 737 Classic and 737. They all have the traditional airplane infobox. BigRed606 (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)