User talk:Esemono/Archive 5

aXXo
Hi, thanks for quoting me, that is very flattering ;) I don't really understand what is the big deal here with removing him. Do you know why they did it? was the reason really that he wasn't well known enough? That would be insane, how OLD are these people anyway, 55? -- Brian Tjoe-Nij 19:22, 13 January 2008


 * somehow, people from the scene think he's indeed making low quality vids, I think also because he doesn't release in RAR format (stupid release format IMHO) and they think he's like the Microsoft of the release world. I got banned from Demonoid for standing up for him, crazy fuckers.--Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Waouhh
I am totally astonished by !! That's fantastic. Thanks a lot. ++ MaCRoEco (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AmboyDukes.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:AmboyDukes.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:SLAmembers.jpg
--Boivie (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Taha Yassin Ramadan In uniform circa 2003.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Taha Yassin Ramadan In uniform circa 2003.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 19:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:SlobodanPraljak.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SlobodanPraljak.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ElGoods.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ElGoods.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gweeter.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gweeter.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AXXo/GA1
Should not AXXo/GA1 just be deleted rather than redirected? There is no reason for it to exist in the first place, is there? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should explain that it is the article page of Talk:AXXo/GA1 which is part of the Good Article review process, and these are always left blank or red. I believe it may cause confusion to have the redirect as people or the GA bots trying to get to Talk:AXXo/GA1 might end there by mistake and be frustratingly redirected to the article. Once the GA review is archived, that could cause real problems. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. Geometry guy 23:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. A harmless alternative for a non-admin is to redirect from AXXo/GA1 to Talk:AXXo/GA1. Geometry guy 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

aXXo (2)
If you want then please help rewrite the lead; but previously, the lead contained information that was not found in the article's body, failing WP:LEAD. Please read the current Good article review for further information. I think the most important change was the creation of the Piracy section, which summarizes what the group is known for. This was previously only found in the lead, which should not have been the case. Gary King ( talk ) 02:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NotreDameHighSchoolShield.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:NotreDameHighSchoolShield.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Tim Spicer Book Cover An Unorthodox Soldier.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Tim Spicer Book Cover An Unorthodox Soldier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. 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 Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasan di Tiro
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User block notice
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been advised by the blocking admin that he blocked you and the IP editor independently, triggered by 3rr report and more or less at the same moment when i decided to issue warnings. Now I appreciate that you are an editor in good standing and may have just been unnerved by the IP entering the fray. Infringing the 3rr rule has happened to not so few passionate editors but it is also important that we all realize that edit warring is bad even where we're sure to do the right thing. Now, I wouldn't unblock you without a request or statement from your side and will presumably not be around when you notice this, so I leave this comment for you and fellow admins in case you ask for an unblock. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:MrMulligan.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MrMulligan.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Template Substitution
Hi there, and thank you for using templates on Wikipedia. On one of your recent edits you used a template that should have been substituted but you did not subst it. Please subst templates that are meant to be substed in the future. Please take a look at Substitution to learn more about it. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you need any more help please ask me on my talk page. Thanks.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 13:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasan di Tiro
Hello Esemono. Long-term edit-warring is still edit warring. I have full-protected the article for a week. Please explain the current points under dispute on the article's Talk page, so that others can understand. If you join in Talk, and the IP will not, there might perhaps be a case for semi-protection. But lately both you and the IP do little but revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasan di TIro
OK - i will get admins to look into a solution. relax - just don't get done for editing warring. :-) stay tuned. regards --Merbabu (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, I don't really know much about the subject and have not followed the dispute (I've just seen it at the top of my watchlist for months) and admins will not know much either, thus I suggest outsiders will just see an edit war and interpret it as editor's behaving badly without actually looking at the merits of the dispute. You might want to request semi-protection, but then someone who's likely not interested in the content in dispute might just say that gives you an advantage by locking out the unregistered party. What steps have you taken in WP:DISPUTE? regards --Merbabu (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked a few admins to advise on what should be done. Stay tuned. --Merbabu (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reverted the anon, and made an additional comment on the talk page. To me, the content of the dispute is not important at this stage. - i've elaborated on the article's talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I made some comments on the article talk page about the "reversed special autonomy in all but name" info. Could you please comment. Article has been semi-protected. I suggest a solution be worked out before that is lifted. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cpl. John Alan Coey - Rhodesian Army Medical Corps.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cpl. John Alan Coey - Rhodesian Army Medical Corps.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom for nice article

 * ...that in Stalin's USSR you could not only be killed for your politics, but images could be altered to show you were not there? by User:Esemono  nom by Victuallers 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Erik S. Kristensen
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Esemono, there is one more comment waiting for your response at the DYK nomination. Thanks, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 00:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Korean Air Lines Flight 85
--Dravecky (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Vistula land
While the history of Congress Poland/Vistula land is a bit confusing, most sources put an end of Congress Poland autonomy at post-January Uprising (~1864-1867), not post-November Uprising (~1831) as you suggested on your maps. See Congress_Poland and Administrative division of Congress Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Further notes:
 * this is really strange. Could you describe it more, and preferably add a month to place it chronologically in a series of maps we have for the Polish-Soviet War? See also commons:Category:Maps of the Polish-Soviet War.
 * Hmmm, thanks. A good idea is to note in map description what sources (other maps) it is based on. Same applies to maps about this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that you have chosen Jurgów (File:Territorial changes of Poland 1920c.jpg) to put on a map of such a scale; why a map for Polish–Czechoslovak border conflicts would be nice, Jurgów was just a village of little importance in a small part of the disputed territory. The map is misleading as it suggests that Jurgów was of some major importance. To a lesser extent, this same confusion applies to File:Territorial changes of Poland 1925.jpg.
 * Well, yes, and I can see a map with a village useful for a very limited purpose (history of the village), but wouldn't it be more useful to show affected regions instead of selected settlements? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the chunk missing from this map?
 * 1948 transfer was about more then Medyka village, see pl:Korekty_granic_Polski_od_1945_roku, so File:Territorial changes of Poland 1948.jpg is misleading (in the same way that the Jurgów and Ostrava maps are). The proper way to do it is like you've done on the 1951 map (I really like it).
 * Another issue: File:Territorial changes of Poland 1699.jpg and similar are entitled "territorial changes" but in fact they don't show change, they show state after (presumably) the change, so without comparing it with a previous map in the series the change is difficult to see. You may want to update those maps to show territory that was changed from the previous map. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On another side note, I've added your maps to various articles on en wiki (you can check their usage on commons via usage tab); feel free to add your maps to other articles you think would benefit from them. It's often a shame that nice maps are forgotten as their creators don't bother adding them to articles - it is not always the case that article editors like me will spot them soon, particularly if they are not properly categorized.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Croatian Party of Rights logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Croatian Party of Rights logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Solatium
I have nominated Solatium, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Solatium. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alice (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Flying Tigers
Please note you changed every reference to an incorrect citation/reference note and compounded that with errors in using templates. All your changes have been reverted although they are WP:AGF contributions. Please look at the changes in the edit mode. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

Bibliographical notations
Hi Esemono, in response to your questions, I am now channeling my former life as a librarian. Now that I am in the zone, here goes. Typically when an article already has an established bibliographic style or formatting, that is the one to use unless a new editor would like to change all the referencing to one consistent style. There is nothing wrong with using templates but when they don't "work" or have the wrong template codes, then there becomes a question of mixing styles. Your use of reference notations does not follow any known style that I could identify. What was in place in the Flying Tigers article was the Modern Language Association Style Guide (MLA for short) along with a short citation form of the Harvard citation. Neither of the entries you made matched or used any of the style guides I could identify. The use of referencing format in Wikipedia does not exactly follow standard publishing formats but seems to be an amalgam of many styles. Basically, what I have seen is an effort to provide assistance to Wiki editors who are not familiar with academic referencing through the use of a "house style" guide which has been continually revised (perfectly understandable given that here is no fixed guide in Wickywacky land to begin with). The other means to assist emergent editors and "newbies" is the template system that I personally find completely "buggy" and tend to ignore it in lieu of using "scratch cataloging (or cataloguing, since I am a Canadian with all the adverse traits of leaning on Canadianisms and Canajan spelling variants)". However, I would not necessarily recommend that other Wiki editors attempt this method unless they are prepared to actually understand how a bibliographic notation style actually works. There are a number of style guides in existence and although the Wiki templates are written in the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide, I find that the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide is more complete and is best suited for social works such as history topics in which I tend to dabble. The easiest way to explain how the MLA bibliographic style should look is in following: Author (last name, first). Title (italicized for main entry, in quotations for secondary entry). Place (of publication): Publisher, date (most recent or current date). The example in MLA style would be: de Seversky, Alexander. Victory Through Air Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942. The APA guide would write the same title as: de Seversky, Alexander (1942). Victory Through Air Power. Simon and Schuster. Due to the egalitarian tenets of WikiWacky World, both, either or any other number of style guides are accepted including the Chicago style guide, ad infinitum... Referencing a quote or verifying the source of a statement for Wiki can then simply provide the entire bibliographic record along with an exact pointer to a page or section within the sources, such as: *de Seversky, Alexander. Victory Through Air Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942, pp. 212–214. or *de Seversky, Alexander (1942). Victory Through Air Power. Simon and Schuster, 1942, pp. 212–214. Because of the cumbersome nature of using a full bibliographic notation for each cited passage, a "shortcut" devise such as the Harvard Citation is often employed. Then the following appears in the text: Alexander de Seversky predicted that air power would be "employed as a method of diplomacy."1


 * Citations (or Note, in reality, it is a listing of foot or endnotes that is used)


 * 1 de Seversky 1942, pp. 212–214.


 * Bibliography


 * de Seversky, Alexander. Victory Through Air Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942. (ISBN is entirely optional)

or
 * Notes


 * 1 de Seversky (1942), pp. 212–214.


 * Bibliography


 * de Seversky, Alexander (1942). Victory Through Air Power. Simon and Schuster.

Sorry, I do run on. Please read this note in edit mode to see where the coding occurs. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC).
 * What matters is that a consistent and accurate system is used. As indicated earlier, the use of standard bibliographic notation was already in place in Flying Tigers. Introducing a new system that is non-standard does not assist a reader. Note the variances that are inherent in referencing that are created whenever a reader sees a citation that matches with the full bibliographic record. When "de Seversky 1942, pp. 212–214." is entered in the citation "string", it matches to: "de Seversky, Alexander. Victory Through Air Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1942." (written out fully, or transmitted fully through a template into a full bibliographic sourcing). FWiW, templates are neither recommended nor mandatory but are available for assistance. They are not properly designed at this point to accommodate variances in author, title and other key aspects of a bibliographic record. There have been consistent efforts in trying to revise the templates; there are "Fixes" for them, but I am loath to use the templates when they are so difficult to use or understand for the average Wiki editor. Again, the templates were not necessarily the problem with the edits that were instituted in Flying Tigers, it was the errors in using them that necessitated a reversion to the original formatting. Bzuk (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC).
 * For an example of how to use Wiki templates properly, write to David Underdown talk who has consistently used a template correctly. Look at the latest article I have edited: Marmaduke Pattle. David's templates were properly and accurately recording information and were not changed. Also look at another article that I revised: Leroy Grumman where the templates were modified but again left in place if they were being used properly. It goes back to the "old" axiom of "garbage in, garbage out" that characterizes any use of data in a computer application. If the "stuff" goes in the right way, then it comes out the right way. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Frank Serpico - 1971.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Frank Serpico - 1971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I noticed your animated maps. :] Great job. I encourage you to write down a little tutorial for your data research. The rest of the work is basically map making and a simple animation. The Map workshop users will enjoy to see a short tutorial, exposing your work. Afterwhat, I encourage you to continue to work alone, in your side : you are doing a great work in this way ! thanks you ^___^ Yug (talk)  20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for information
Hi E, I noticed that you were trying out a new tool on the Flying Tigers article. I tried to use the same process on an article I am currently editing, the SNCASE Armagnac but I am having no luck. Can you take a peek and show me what I am doing wrong? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks, it proves you can teach old dogs new tricks. LOL FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

territorial changes
Hi Esemono. I will find references for all these changes, just give me a few days. Tymek (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland-Czechoslovakia war
I checked your DYK entry and approved. During the process, I noticed what I think is either a discrepancy or confusing: "signed a ceasefire on the 26 February 1919" and "concluded on the 3 February 1919 in Paris". I think you should organize things chronologically if the ceasefire did come later, otherwise, it seems like it is out of place. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chopper Break
Sorry, I'd love to help but this time of year is simply insane for me. Good luck with it, though, and hopefully I can be more helpful with a future project! Scartol •  Tok  00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Gimme danger (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) And another. Same place, different day. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Poland
I will certainly help you with copyediting your article. I'll post here if I have any questions/comments. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of An Duc Do
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article An Duc Do, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails to establish WP:N. References are the criminal complaint against the subject (1), brief notices of his conviction (2,5) don't mention the subject (3,4) or are summaries, with link to, another reference (6 links to 2)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paleking (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Territorial changes of Poland
Hi, Esemono, thanks for your message.

As far as I can see, you have contributed quite a lot to the article. It's very nice to see an editor so devoted. Despite the fact that I am currently on a Wikibreak, I will certainly be happy to help you out here. But alas, my time is quite limited (and has been so for the past couple of months) and I will therefore try to attract a few other fellow editors who have the time and the skills necessary to help out as well.

I will start copy-editing on Tuesday but for now I'll mark the article appropriately. Sincerely, A Vand talkcontribs 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of convicted computer criminals
This edit messed up the ArticleHistory template. See ArticleHistory; only completed actions should be listed there. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for adding the history section to the Zia (New Mexico). We needed that to help expand the article more. I recently pretty much wrote the article and got it from stub to "C" rate. Thanks for the history section and one user said the article is leaning towards "B". Cheers, Schnitzel  MannGreek. 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)