User talk:FarSouthNavy/Archive 1

Battle of Nasiriyah
I just wanted to commend you on a great job with the Battle of Nasiriyah article. It was in such poor shape and given such little attention that at one point I had nom'd it for AfD. You pretty much single-handedly took it from that to (in my opinion) a start class article. Awesome work and thanks so much! NeoFreak 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Maybe you should consider changing your name. Dago as you probably already know, is a serious ethnic slur. Such names are not allowed on this site. Superdude99 11:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Superdude. Since I'am proud of my Italian ancestry, i have never intended to offend nobody with my nickname. The term "Dago's Navy" was employed by an American Admiral commenting the supposed poor performance of the Italian Fleet in WWII in his Preface to the memories of British Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Cunningham, so I introduced this phrase as a way of mocking those certainly offensive remarks. I guess I could change it to a more suitable one, like "WopsNavy" if you want, but I have already made a lot of contributions under the former nick. I will make the proper changes as soon as possible. Thanks. Dario 12:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No sweat
Hey man, I guess its all about context! Obviously someone who sees your name would/could be offended but seeing how you are Argentinian w Italian ancestry It should not that big of a big deal. Also nice to see someone from agentinia take interest in Irish nationalism! Do you also have Irish ancestry? Superdude99 12:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Revolución Libertadora corrections
Thank you for correcting my mistake in editing the Revolucion Libertadora page. Somehow, my signature got put at the top of the page, I am not sure how. I did try to sign my correction, but I don't know how the signature got put at the top of the page. I find some aspects of the editing task with Wiki a bit confusing. Thanks again. I am going to try to sign this edit, without causing the same error again.warshy 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IRA Volunteer issue
Go to this page, an Indian guy is being forced by Loyalists and West Brit who are demanding that the rank of Volunteer is banned for describing the rank of members of the IRA – if you do not voice your opinion on this then they are going to get away with this bull Vintagekits 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.
The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you.--Vintagekits 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sub-eds
Sometimes I've followed your edits and rephrased them (sub-edited) (eg Malta Convoys). I hope this doesn't offend, the intention is to "smooth" the text a bit and correct punctuation. It's not a deliberate chase, just as I see them on my watchlist; probably I'm too fussy. As far as I recall, I don't change the sense without explanation. Let me know if/ when I cause offence and we can resolve peacefully. Folks at 137 13:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Argentine ground forces in the Falklands War‎
You are welcome to help! --Jor70 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Belfast Brigade
Provisional IRA Belfast Brigade has been created, just so you know. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, One Night. Thank you for the info.

DagosNavy 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know you add some good info to the other Brigade articles, so thought you'd be interested in this one as well. One Night In Hackney 303 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Real IRA
Don't suppose you know of any convenient fair-use images that could be used on it please? I've done plenty of work on it recently (still more to do) but images would be good too naturally. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm working on the origins right now, it needs more details about the split from the PIRA which I'm in the process of writing, should be done soon. One Night In Hackney 303 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Finished that finally, was a tricky task as it all had to be written at once rather than parts at a time. Still need to add more after the re-organisation post-ceasefire and pre-MI6 rocket attack, but I think it's coming along nicely. One Night In Hackney 303 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hola
Sos Bostero? o Gallina? Soy Bicho Colorado. Cheers for your help on the Superclásico article. Maybe you would be interested in joining WikiProject Argentine football. Regards, King of the North East  (T/C) 00:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the greatest frustrations my father has faced (and he continues to face) in his life is that his son is a turncoat Gallina!. When I was 12, I became a fan of...Huracán, after my Grandma (her brothers were fans of Huracán of Mar del Plata). However, I was very happy last Sunday, so there is still some sympathy for the Millo in my heart ;).


 * The bichitos have style, Argentinos was incredibly prolific in producing good players, besides Diego (I'am a living witness of his first two goals in the league). I remember Riquelme, Sorín, Pavoni, Ereros, "Checho" Batista, "El colo" Domenech...an endless list. Thank you for inviting me to the project, I promise to join it as soon as possible. Good look and thank you again. Dario 10:36, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

Battle of Top Malo House
I hope you can correct the recent update done on this page for it is now claiming 5 Argentine Commandoes were killed and seven wounded when as far as I recall 2 Argentine Commandoes were killed and six wounded. Thanks for your work. Marco.

the troubles
the only reason i added republic of ireland is because members of the garda irish police had died. If you would be so kind would you add the casualties of the civillians aswell.

Paddy (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes i aswell found it hard to find the right format to include civilians. I tried to mimic the Vietnam war page but as soon as I entered a third collum to include the UK and Irish forces the bottom area disapeared (see Vietnam war page and you'll get what I mean. But the problems is with the page as a whole its very one sided at times. One of the big things i wanted change was the image of a bobby sands quote next to a IRA member. I just put the current image of the divide in Ireland. (Paddy (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Hello, thats a valid point about the map for a image, but the problem was i couldnt find any photograph that would go well with the article. But if you find one thats suitable please put it up. Its best to have this article been edited by people who are making changes that are historically acurate. Rather then others who have in the past made changes that are biast to there own opinion. Which sadly people have done alot to "the troubles" page before.

(Paddy (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Mar del Plata
I saw you removed the template added to the article and decided to go back to those small and limited city-header-ar, city-poli-ar-ba, and other tiny little templates. I added such template in order to be consistent with other cities (e.g. Buenos Aires). Is there any reason on using the little ones when there is already one suitable for any city? I notice that you've done most of the editions to this article, which is great, but I don't see the reason for having a map flying on top of the article and a somewhat limited template, thus giving a dull and messy look to the article. Good luck. Ctirado (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Hussein missile article
DagosNavy, I poured a fresh cup of coffee and enjoyed reading your re-write of Al Hussein article and upgraded it to B-class. JOB WELL DONE! If you don't mind, I would like to do a few minor tweaks for you. Pour yourself a cup of fresh coffee or pop the lid off an adult beveraage! ... depending of the time of day (lol). Thank you so much for the re-write! Cheers! Lance.... LanceBarber (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * THANKS A LOT, Lance!!!. I have no words for the Barnstar...here in Argentina is summer right now, so I will get a pint of chilled dark beer ;)...Thank you again! DagosNavy 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Argentine Type 42
Does the remaining Argentine Type 42 still have Exocet? From memory these were fitted aft of the funnel but I couldn't see any such installation on the latest pictures on the Argentine Navy website. There is also no mention in the technical details. Justin talk 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:your message
I will take a look at it over the weekend, but if you need a second opinion faster than that leave a message with. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Be there momentarily (I have three article left the "nedd attention", then the category I'm working on wil be empty :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

South Armagh sniper
I am very concerned about the amount of material you are adding which doesn't correspond precisely to the refs you are providing. You need to be aware that the subject matter is considerably more complex that it might appear at first sight. It should be apparent to you by now that the contents of this article are becoming increasingly controversial and not only are feelings running high but my patience is wearing thin. When including contentious material, you should include impeccable references which correspond exactly to the material you are relying on. I intend checking the material myself when the cited books I've ordered arrive. Failure to comply with policy will result in material being withdrawn and may also result in your account being blocked. Please be extra careful. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger. Well, I'am seriously reflecting about it. Some of the controversial material was already removed or re-shaping by myself to match exactly what sources say, thus avoiding OR violations. And I will remove by myself all the material that could mean a prejudice to Wikipedia readers. My edits were made on good faith; perhaps because I'am not a native speaker of English, I failed to include accurate references sometimes, but not in the degree that another user(s) claim. I will response as soon as possible to the post at the talk page of the "South Armagh Sniper" article.--Darius (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be excellent use of your time if you could check your contributions very carefully against the sources and either amend the text or fix the source. I suggest you be bold while you are doing it to err on the side of safety. I also agree that this should be your priority rather than entering into discussions about it. I hope you don't think I'm being impolite if I suggest that this is particularly difficult area for someone who does not have English as their mother tongue to edit in and that it might be easier to work also in less controversial areas :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank for your tip, Roger. I've introduced some changes in the SA sniper article. I re-shaped the potential OR statements (synthesis of two different sources), by replacing Taylor for two cites from Harnden. I also added quotes (without removing the tags) about the smuggling of the rifles. I hope it will be the start of some kind of compromise about this hard-debated issue. I also want to ask you about the online links to CAIN website. The tables produced by searching casualties there are the prime source for the main article about "The Troubles". Are these tables a reliable source according to Wikipedia or not?. Thank you again.--Darius (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P/S: The PoV charges against the sources are beyond my reach :)--Darius (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Falklands war task force
Hello :) I'm considering setting up a Falklands war task force on wikipedia and noticed you've edited the subject quite a bit. Would you consider joining the group if I go ahead and create it? Thanks, --Tefalstar (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Giachino
I want to thank you for the article you write about Pedro Giachino, I think he deserves it. Best Regards Bcartolo (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:GADA
Reassessed as B-class owing to the now cited section. Well Done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Great article, hope you don't mind if make some copyedits. Is English your first language? Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think this sentence needs changing; "From the period between May 1st to May 28, there were three Vulcan sorties planned, but only one was carried out, achieving nothing." The main thing is the "achieving nothing" part, grammatically it's wrong, if the Vulcan crew had still only managed to bomb an outhouse it would still be classed as "something". Secondly it's unreferenced, but it can't ever be referenced as that piece of information is a matter of debate between military analysts. We ourselves can't add our own opinions. Also the "May 1st to May 28" bit is odd, why not just say "May" instead, at moment it appears you're trying to avoid mentioning the May 31 raid (although I do see you have placed it later in article) :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Celtic" remarks

 * Now that I know you've Celtic blood in you everything's ok then. By the way, I'm married to an Italian, I've two children who are by extension half Italian; I just didn't care for your incorrect remark regarding the "British". Most of us people with Irish blood also possess in varying degrees ancestry from our "British" neighbours; therefore, I resent other nationalities commenting on our ethnic origin. But I don't hold your Argentinian/Italian heritage against you. You have as much right to your input on any article in Wikipedia as I or anybody else. I happen to have strong feelings about the Warrenpoint atrocity.13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)13:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Port Stanley
I fundamentally disagree with your argument. The name of the place in English is Stanley aka Port Stanley at the time, calling it Puerto Argentino is simply giving in to an Argentine POV push. Using the Argentine names is POV and we should strive to be neutral. The subject of the article, to be blunt, is irrelevant to the use of names in the content. Imagine for example an English speaker who has never heard of the use of the Argentine name, they would be confused as to the location. In the English wikipedia we should use the English names, acknowledgment of the Argentine name should be more than sufficient. I'm not particularly enamoured of your compromise edit but I won't change it. Justin talk 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Blurred Royal Marines pic
Hi Darius, you were the original uploader of this pic; Have you used a "blur" special effect? Would you mind sending me the original, or giving me a link where I can find it online please. Ryan 4314  (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A further apology is in order
Hi DagosNavy, it's me again, Jeanne. I'm writing to you again in order to offer a deeper apology for the offensive remark I made to you the other day. It was horrible and uncalled for, made in the heat of the moment following a fight I had with my Italian husband. I'm sorry I offended you and the apology I sent you the other day wasn't really abject enough. I hope you bear me no grudges as I admire your excellent grasp of the English language. Congratulations. Peace?Cheersjeanne (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Darius, thank you for accepting my apology. I feel much better now.Cheers.jeanne (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Agreement
I've found some online sources to prove it was the Italian San Marco Marines that defeated the British seabore landings that were meant to take Tobruk from the Italians. I hope you can tidy up the page a bit for I am not a wikitechno. Like the Argentines in the fighting, the Italians were much maligned by commentators during the Second World War. I believe I have done much to rectify their image as "poor fighters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 09:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright
For info Darius, I think you might want to revise the copyright notice on some of the images you've uploaded. You might find the tag is more appropriate as given the length of time since the war, the copyright on Argentine photos has expired. Justin talk 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries, ask away anytime. Justin talk 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Falklands FF Incidents
Good idea but I've replied on my talk page as another editor may have an input. Justin talk 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * GADA 601 can you keep an eye out for vandalism on this article. Seems to have beem caught up on a spat on WP:AN/I  Justin talk 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

porfavor DagosNavy ayudanos--nosotros de sangre italiana-- en la pagina de la Primera Batalla de Alamein
Veras que en la pagina de discusion se ha establecido gracias al libro "Rommel's Desert Commanders (pagina 145)que el Regimiento de Bersaglieri 7 logro la conquista de la fortaleza de Mersa Matruh el 29 de junio del a#o 1942, en la que los italianos tomaron 6,500 prisioneros britanicos. Manana seria el aniversario no. 66 de esta gran victoria terrestre italiana. Yo soy David Aldea (autor de varios articulos de Malvinas, y al momento estoy escribiendo un libro sobre el RI 4) y he contribuido en gran parte a las primeras ediciones de la pagina del desembarco argentino en Malvinas y otras paginas, como la pagina de Monte Longdon. El paragrafo que han deletado es el siguiente:

''General der Panzertruppen Ulrich Kleemann's 90th Light Africa Division began the encirclement of Mersa Matruh on June 27. Initially the 10th Indian and 50th Infantry Divisions put up a confused, but determined resistance Soon, the German force, numbering only 1,600, ran out of steam. Thanks to infantry reinforcements, in the form of the 7th and the 9th Bersaglieri Regiments from the Italian X and XXI Infantry Corps, Kleeman and the Italians overwhelmed the position on 29 June at 0930 hours.''

Mira, si he cometido un pecado, es del tener varias cuentas para editar, pero pense que eso no era un crimen. Me dicen que estoy cometiendo vandalismo pero si ves mis contribuciones, veras que las hago en buena fe. No se porque un tal Noclador ha decido hacer la guerra contra mi en cuanto a mis ediciones sobre las fuerzas terrestres italianas en norte africa y en el frente ruso. Con bastante esfuerzo he establecido que los soldados italianos tomaron 20,000-30,000 soldados aliados prisioneros en tunisia, libia y egipto y ahora un tal Noclador me ha bloquedo sin ganar el argumento de quienes fueron las tropas que obtuvieron la victoria en Mersa Matruh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topmalohouse (talk • contribs) 08:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

En cuanto a la batalla de Goose Green, Justin A Kuntz a borrado lo siguiente:

The defending Argentinian forces known as Task Force Mercedes consisted of the Lieutenant-Colonel Italo Piaggi's 12th Infantry Regiment (RI 12) and a company of the Ranger-type 25th Infantry Regiment (RI 25). Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Ali Seineldin, considered by many Argentinians to be the 'father' of the Argentinian Commandos, who chafing at his role as Commanding Officer of an ordinary infantry unit, put all his conscripts through a compressed version of the commando course in March 1982, dressing them in the green berets of the Army Commandos and changing the title of RI 25 unofficially to 25th 'Special' Infantry Regiment. The name 'Special' was picked rather than adopt the US Army 'Ranger' title.

Justin A Kuntz dice que no es buena cosa hacer disponible paginas disponibles de google books pero por much tiempo, por ejemplo, con la pagina SIEGE OF TOBRUK y OPERATION HUSKY, usando el nombre "generalmesse" estas paginas estaban disponibles para el lector. Debo reconocer que el editor Kirrages me ayudo mucho en este trabajo. En cuanto a tu pagina del GADA 601, gracias por tu buen trabajo en este tema. Desafortunadamente, Justin A Kuntz ha borrado mi contribucion sobre la afirmacion por partes de los argentinos, que posiblemente un misil Roland dejo fuera de accion un RAF Harrier el 12 de junio. Aunque no sea cierto es de mucho valor para historiadores esta afirmacion sobre un misil Roland siendo lanzado el 12 de junio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyneverrepeats (talk • contribs) 10:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Argentina PNA
No worries, glad to see it corrected. To be honest I've been kind of distracted by the sock puppet master for a little while and have to get back into editing again. Just for information we were correct and all of those sock puppets have been blocked. Justin talk 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, were you aware of this WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group, your perspective might be invaluable. Justin talk 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hanrahan Quote
No problems, its fine as you've done it. Justin talk 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ww1 navy campaignboxes.
Hi. I noticed you removed campaignboxes I placed on British Campaign in the Baltic 1918-19. The reason for having campaignboxes is that they assist a reader to navigate to other pages which might be of interest. As someone who has recently been reading (and indeed writing) navy battle articles, it is quite obvious to me that someone interested in a baltic sea battle is just as likely to be interested in a north sea naval battle. I note that some other language wikis do not have these separate boxes for WW1 navy battles in different oceans, instead just have one box for all naval engagements in ww1. Ships move across the sea, it is in their nature. Starting to read some naval history I found it somewhat annoying, not to say confusing, that some battles are linked (by a box) yet others occurring at the same time (and thus arguably more relevant than others in the same place at a different time) are not shown on the article at all. These articles all need to mention each other. Sandpiper (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a look back to see if you had replied. First time I didn't really understand your edit comment. However, perhaps now I do. If you removed the info boxes because you consider this battle not part of WW1, then the existing 'WW1 baltic sea box' and all category links saying it is part of WW1 need to be removed also: either it is, or it isn't. I don't know how historians view this, but it seems to me somethng of a tidying up after the fall of Germany, just as WW2 continued after Germany's fall, so part of the whole. Sandpiper (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Then we disagree. As far as I can see there are only about 50 or less different ww1 naval battles. Some may be missing, but a read through a book on the subject would seem to suggest we have the main ones. As someone using these pages, I want all the campaigns to be listed. The alternative is to give me a deal of trouble trying to find them. The Balkans campaign in 1919 may be the extreme case, but in general all these engagements are part of one whole. battle of the Falklands was won by taking ships from the north sea, with a knock on effect reducing the grand fleet there. Similarly Coronel was lost because the admiralty refused to take ships and send them. The infoboxes dividing battles by the sea where they happened is completely arbitrary and cuts across battles which are related to each other. Ships move about. I started researching the dardanelles campaign. This has led me into all the others.... because the issues behind choices for the others affect that one.
 * I'm afraid I really don't see why having three or four compressed infoboxes each one summarising one campaign upsets a page. The whole is quite small and users can pop it up if they wish.
 * I have no comment to make about WW2, but I could see a good deal of sense in combining the individual 'sea' campaign boxes into one WW1 naval box. For example, see Bitwa na Dogger Bank (1915) where the matter is done in this way. It seems to me the battles have been excessively divided. For the most part, the German fleet stayed at home. I don't see the point of leaving out relevant links: the point of having a navigation box is to provide them.
 * Examining your example, perhaps I should comment. In the example you give, I note the battle infobox is headed Operation abstention, whereas the campaignbox is headed Battle of the Mediterranean. If you insist, we could perhaps place a third box across the bottom of the pages listing all battles, but I don't see why this is  necessary when the campaign boxes already exist and carry out this function. But I do believe it is necessary to provide users with a proper means to cross link to clearly related battles. Do you honestly believe someone interested in 'operation abstention' is only going to be interested in ww2 naval engagements which happened in the mediterranean? Sandpiper (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vamos che!
un argentino por estos lares! te desubrí por esto saludos cumpa!--Argentumm (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ARA Granville
Hi,

Just to let you know I removed the picture of the ARA Granville from the Timeline article. It didn't link to any of the bullets for that decade. I created that article and I've tried to ensure the pictures link to each decade. Justin talk 08:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, man. I uploaded the pic on the basis of the 1995 incident, but we will not miss it :).--Darius (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Action off Abkhazia
Thank you for returning this event back to the original page. Red4tribe (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Iconic photographs of the Falklands War
I've just started a new article in my user space here. I'd welcome your comments on the images chosen and suggestions for any others. You are of course welcome to contribute if you would like to help. I'd like to include something with an Argentine perspective as well. Justin talk 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, can I beg a small favour, could you enlighten me a little on Argentine copyright law. Are official Argentine Government publications in the public domain?  If so a suitable reference to support that would be very helpful at the moment. Justin talk 08:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
Looks much better! Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Piaggi etc
You might be interested in this article I created - Italo Piaggi. It could do with a rewrite.

Thanks for your uploads of images to commons as well. By the way, do you have a picture of Che Guevara playing rugby? I've been looking for one of these for years. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mucho Gracias for your reply. Most of the material on the war that I have seen, or its personnel comes purely from the British perspective. Even pictures!


 * I'd like to write an article about Guevara's interest in rugby. It's a quirky and often overlooked aspect of his life (at least in English speaking countries). I think his nickname "Fuser" comes from there... --MacRusgail (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dots
Hi mate, saw your edit |here, thought you'd wanna see the 2nd bullet point |here Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pembroke Lighthouse
Nice one, good find. Justin talk 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:LastLion-w.jpg
Hey, I suggest you stop using various tactics to add unacceptable image files to Wikipedia. You added this file with a licence “ for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents,” but you are obviously using for no such thing, but rather to put a picture of the tank into the article about the tank. You have also insufficiently identified the source of the image.

I see that you routinely remove notices from your talk page about such violations of policy, but you should be aware that they can all be read by looking at the page history. If you continue to post unacceptable images, you will likely find yourself blocked from editing. —Michael Z. 2008-09-10 15:20 z 


 * The first paragraph is already under discussion on the proper page.
 * If I removed such notices it was not in order to hide anything, my intention was just to clean up my talk page; I know that I cannot erased them from Wikipedia, and I never intended to do so.
 * I only use the "tactics" (as you said) allowed by Wikipedia. We are, after all, editors, and not lawyers. I acknowledge that I made many mistakes uploading images, mostly during my first year as a registered user. But I never intended to vandalize or disrupt the encyclopedia, just to add useful images to articles. By the way, I read somewhere that the deletion of pics uploaded in good faith by an user is not enough reason for blocking him.--Darius (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, then I'll back off and I apologize for making too many assumptions.


 * But I'll explain why I reacted the way I did. At the article Lion of Babylon tank I saw you place three images in quick succession, and each one seemed to be uploaded under clearly bogus justification.  After reviewing the fair-use guidelines, I'm relaxing my objection to the last one and leaving another comment to that effect.  But I still can't imagine how the previous two (1, 2) could reasonably have seemed to meet the licence criteria under which they were uploaded.  Please be more careful to meet the licence terms in the future.


 * Sorry to blow up. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-09-10 23:31 z 

Possibly unfree Image:LastLion-w.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:LastLion-w.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Michael Z. 2008-09-10 15:20 z  15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:EOCM.jpg still doesn't qualify for fair use
The requirement for replaceability means “no free equivalent is available, or could be created”. Since the subject is in a museum freely accessible to the public, this photo is replaceable. It is not “extremely difficult”, and if it were, then that would still be insufficient. The disputed fair-use rationale which I posted still stands.

I'm restoring the use tag: please don't remove it again until the image has been reviewed. —Michael Z. 2008-09-11 17:40 z 

It's OK, Michael. I thought that the new tag was enough. No problem with the EOCM image. As I told you, a free version is incoming, so you're right about the replaceability. As for LastLion-2003, things would have been much more clear to me with the current template when I uploaded the pic. Thank you and best regards.--Darius (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sobremonte and British Invasions
Hi Darius: Thanks for the comment. My reference to the King of Spain in the subject heading was in no way criticism on your edition; it was just stating the point of view for my own. Happy edits!Nordisk varg (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin (air)
The problem with this edit is we run into problems of what was the Battle of Berlin. Yes you are right that 1047 were lost during the battle, but if we use that number as opposed to the number over Berlin, then the casualty figures are probably wrong because AFAICT they are only for Berlin. I suggest that we discuss it further on the talk page of the article. --PBS (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From the sources I have read, I'm of the opinion that it was all the raids, but as I said above, the battle box needs to compare like with like. Perhaps include both figures? However I think if you want to change it then you should initiate a section on the talk page so that others can voice their opinions. --PBS (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles
Putting the flag icons beside factions which did not belong to a sovereign state gives the impression of official sanction, backing and/or support. That's blatantly wrong --Blowdart | talk 12:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Ciocchini-b.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ciocchini-b.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:ChaletMarplatense.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,Image:ChaletMarplatense.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. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already another identic image from Commons, this one should go. By the way, the pic was taken by myself in 2005. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cassiopea-RM.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Cassiopea-RM.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:AltFerrandiz.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:AltFerrandiz.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) 00:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-breaking spaces
Hello. I noticed your addition of the category to the article SMU U-20 (Austria-Hungary) and wanted to thank you for the addition. I did notice, however, that your edit seemed to have removed some non-breaking spaces that had been inserted in the article. The Manual of Style suggests that a non-breaking space be used between a value and the unit, i.e. between 5 and metres in something like "5 metres". I've restored the non-breaking spaces to the article, but I wanted to bring this to your attention so that you might be aware of why these spaces are there. Thanks and good luck in your future editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just
Te pido disculpas por el comentario fuera de lugar que te puse... --190.49.101.52 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No hay problema. Un abrazo.--Darius (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ARA Santísima Trinidad
Would it be possible please for you to write a brief article on the earlier ARA Santísima Trinidad‎ - the one you say was a brig, not a frigate. Please could you quote sources.

Clearly some some people in the late 1940s felt that the older Santísima Trinidad‎ was sufficiently notable to be remembered in the name of a new ship.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Tambo Nuevo
Good job on Action of Tambo Nuevo. I added it to the New Pages section of the Argentina-related regional notice board. -- Alexf(talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Famaillá
I just finished translation on Battle of Famaillá. You might want to watchlist Argentina-related regional notice board, if you haven't already, to see what's new. Any copy editing or fixing on the new article is welcome. I have a long list of missing articles on Argentina's 19th century battles to work on, as time permits. Cheers! -- Alexf(talk) 18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work, Alexf! I think that the Argentine Civil Wars of mid-1800s are remarkably disregarded by Wikipedia, both in Spanish or English. I see that our old warrior Lamadrid was hard to kill! 1841 and still fighting!! :). My only concern is the infobox' litography. This work belongs to engineer Grondona (died 1878), and depicts the Battle of Suipacha. I have just uploaded another litography, this one of the Battle of Famaillá, of an anonymous artist. I will post it to the article, if you have no objections. Un abrazo.--Darius (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just used the image from the es article. Any help is appreciated. Now, back to my ToDo list. -- Alexf(talk) 10:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April 3 at Georgias
Hi, was wondering if you are going to create (at least could not find it if already exists) an article about georgias landing. I have not much time to be online but I could help from time to time. There is a first hand story here. Keep up the good work --Jor70 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Darius, saw your reply elsewhere. This could be an article topic but I have to say that I found the source he is suggesting to be rather partisan. I can provide plenty on the British side - are you interested in a joint project? Justin talk 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Darius that chimes pretty much with my thinking, I have my doubts about that new book, it seems you have to sensationalise everything to sell things these days. BSW is usually pretty accurate and Freedman is also meticulous is his research.  For some of the background stuff Signals of War, which Freedman wrote with Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse is also good.  I think its important to set the background scene to explain why the Marines were there; South Georgia wouldn't have normally have had a garrison.  We could also finish with an small paragraph about Operation Paraquet with a link to the main article.  How does that sound? Justin talk 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1982 Invasion of South Georgia? That would correspond to the invasion article, or alternatively the Battle of Grytviken.  Happy to help with any citations but this is a busy week for me so you might not get a rapid response.  Justin talk 07:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hector Bonzo
FYI --Jor70 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic Pictorial
I dont think are usable, but really enjoyable. CC Philippi's son web page  Notice Rio Grande aircraft totally unsheltered --Jor70 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "cards"
Darius, not bad at all, a good addition to Wikipedia. The English could do with some cleaning up but I can do that. Well done. Justin talk 07:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very nice, recommend you submit it to WP:DYK quickly while u still can. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Muy bueno che!, congrats. A map like the one at operacion rosario would be great but I know Im already asking too much. I have my reservations in calling astiz and his team commandos, he was in fact intellingence (ironic name for a torturer), I already friendly discussed this with Justin time ago ;), may be there was same confusion due the lagartos propaganda.  We should remember that ARA did not left his commandos in reserve on April 2, their doctrine would told to employ them, and although might have been some doubts initally about the British resistance it was already clear enough at the landing point due the alouette recco flights.  --Jor70 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, the DYK inclusion criteria is very low, you're fact could literally be; Argentina invaded South Georgia islands. Ryan 4314   (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Are there any PD-AR photos available? Images would make a valuable addition to the article, if there is a map available of the operation and someone can send me a scanned copy I can creat a vector image. I can be emailed through wikipedia; sorry I don't put my email in talk anymore as I've had some unpleasant mail as a result. Justin talk 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:M%C3%A1rquez-A4Q.jpg
Buena foto!, we can also add that is actually ARA serial 0661/3-A-308 BuNo 12234. --Jor70 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Buen dato, Jor!. Feel free to add the fact to the file summary. Thank you!--Darius (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming soon!  --Jor70 (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fantastic documentary!!. I will not miss it. Thanks a lot Jor!.--Darius (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

601st Anti-Aircraft Artillery Group
An Excellent Piece of work that I have referenced in my Updates to 800 & 801 Naval Air Squadrons section on the Falklands / Malvina's Conflict..

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Submarine Incident off Kildin island
Hello! I have recently nominated Submarine Incident off Kildin island, an article you have been editing, for Did you know, to be featured on Main Page. The nomination has now been reviewed, and there are some issues that may need to be clarified. If you are interested in having your work on MainPage, please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing Wikipedia. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Re User:90.201.120.243
Hello Dagosnavy

I notice you’ve reverted the contributions from this IP.

I don’t disagree with the change, but it was already queried on the talk page, so it might have been worth waiting for an answer, so as not to bite the newcomers. He isn’t the first person to not misunderstand the meaning of “decisive, is he? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I've chipped in on the interminable discussion at Second Battle of Sirte; you might want to comment... Xyl 54 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just spotted this Darius, that IP is a rather determined vandal (already blocked) who goes on sprees adding that term to articles. I've reverted about 30 such edits already. Regards, Justin talk 15:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Felix Artuso
merita un lugar   --Jor70 (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hercules Bombero
--Jor70 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jor70
Any idea why he has quit? Justin talk 12:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was wondering also. I hope all is well with him. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese-speaker
I usually go to Jor70 with these questions, but since he's gone, I'm hunting Latin American users with interest in military matters. I need a Portuguese reader for this one, so if you can't help me directly, I'd appreciate you pointing me to an editor who can.

An IP user posted info in this diff, which is bsed on this link http://www.aereo.jor.br/?p=13836=release AWhile I am not flunt in portuguese in anyway, I have a little experience translating informal portuguese using Google translator. Even so, the translation is very poor. Further, the website of the source, http://www.gilbertoamaral.com.br, contains only one references to the Tucano at all, here, from June 2008. I've done several searches on Google,and watched a few English-language military and defence sites as well, and there has been nothing on this. The user re-posted his info again today hereiff, and apparently still beleives this is real,and should be posted.

Can you or anyone else be of assistance? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi BilCat. The link provided by the IP user effectively claims that EMBRAER has reached an agreement to sell 100 Tucanos to the USAF.


 * The info (dated on 29 September) seems however to be a little premature. According to this October 1 article, published by a bussiness magazine from Sao Pablo, a deal is still far off, since firms like Pilatus and Beechcraft didn't give up yet.


 * P/S: I hope Jor70 could rejoin us soon.--Darius (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. I had a feeling it was just referring to a bid in a competition, not a completed deal. The source you provided backs this up. Mui obrigado!- BilCat (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Nena-fl.jpg
Thanks for uploading Nena-fl.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. 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. MBelgrano (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tonelero
Hello, my friend! I've seen your recent edits in the Passage of the Tonelero article and I wanted to thank you. The final result was very good! I did only one change to what you wrote, if you don't mind: the Brazilians did not get Mancilla's troops weapons and equipment. They landed far away from it. Do you usually work on navy-related articles, is that it? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Brazilian participation in the war is often diminished by "bad luck". When looking at the war, historians (even Brazilian historians!) only notice 4,000 Brazilians among an army of 20,000 Argentines. The problem is that there were other 12,000 Brazilians under Caxias that were going to disembark south of Buenos Aires to conquer the city and then march to north to face Rosas. Things were not as expected, because Caxias believed that or Rosas would defeat the Coalition army and the Brazilian Army would have to face him before taking Buenos Aires. Or the Coalition army would defeat Rosas and he would escape towards Buenos Aires and fortify it. No one expected that he would simply escape towards Europe. About the war itself, although I imagine that many Brazilian officer were eager to avenge the disastrous Argentina-Brazil War (as many had fought in it), the Brazilian government was in fact trying to prevent to lose Rio Grande do Sul as it had lost Cisplatina. Rosas was financing Brazilian separatists in Rio Grande do Sul just as the Argentine government did in Cisplatine before. I wrote the article about Platine War but now I am trying to write the one about the Uruguayan War. Too much stuff, however.


 * About the Platine War, do you have any more information about the two battles that occured before the Battle of Caseros? The sources I had did not tell how many were in each side and what nationality they were part of. --Lecen (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Spada
Hi

You tagged a piece of this article earlier. I've put it on the talk page for discussion; do you want to comment? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Military Cemetery
Hello my friend, I would like to get this page on the Spanish (Argentine) Wikipedia as a tribute to the brave soldiers sailors & airmen whose remains lie in the Malvinas. As you have an interest in this subject could you please advise me /

This may amuse you
Apparently I'm such an ardent British nationalist, that I lack perspective. This is because I raised a thread at AN/I because an editor called another senile. You know sometimes this place is getting so farcial I just want to quit. Anyway, ciao my friend. Un abrazo. Justin talk 11:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks old friend, the voice of reason as always. Cheered me up no end, editing has been a depressing business of late.  Justin talk 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i just wanted to say i resent what you said about me on Justins talk page. I am not a POV warrior or a troll or a vandal and i did not go "beserk" after gibnews insulted me (which other editors agreed he did). All i was trying to do was remove British from parts of the article in which it should have been English and in doing so i seem to have upset Justin and Gibnews. Cheers--English Bobby (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. No need to appologise, this just seems to be a misunderstanding on my behalf. Happy editing:)--English Bobby (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review
A deletion review that you may have an interest in:. Justin talk 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)