User talk:Rbbuckwalter96

Copyright violation in SS Eugenio C.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on SS Eugenio C., by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because SS Eugenio C. is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting SS Eugenio C., please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent MS Sovereign of the Seas -related edits
As you might have noticed, I have largely reverted several of your edits on and related to MS Sovereign of the Seas. Your contributions are of course welcome to Wikipedia, but there were several problems with your edits that made me conclude the articles in question were better in their original format. Most importantly, while it is known that the ship will be renamed MS Sovereign at some point, there are no verifiable sources available at the moment that would support your claim that the ship has already been renamed. Until (or unless) such a source is provided—by you or by someone else—the articles in question should be retained as they are. When a source clearly stating the ship has been renamed is provided, the article MS Sovereign of the Seas should be moved to a new namespace at MS Sovereign and the text on that article as well as possible related articles should be updated accordingly.

As a few other points related to the MS Sovereign of the Seas article, while your edits were well-intended, they were in violations of established Wikipedia formatting conventions. The For other ships... text on top of the article is related to the article namespace. As long as the article is named MS Sovereign of the Seas, the For template should also deal with Sovereign of the Seas, as it's function is to guide people who were looking for information on similarly named ships but not this particular one to the correct article.

In the ship infobox the established concensus on infobox usage is that the "career" infobox covers the ship's entire career, through all the name- and flag-changes (as has been done in the article in question already). Therefore, the "Fate" field should not be used until the shp has met her final fate, be it by scrapping, sinking, or some more exotic form of demise.

On SS France (1961), the "records" box in the bottom of the page should display the ship's name that ousted the France as the largest ship in the world as it was at the time. Therefore, even after the Sovereign of the Seas is renamed Sovereign the text in SS France should be maintained as Sovereign of the Seas.

I have no idea what you attempted to do with your edits on Pullmantur Cruises, but as noted above until it is established by a verifiable source that the Sovereign has entered service with them, the article should be kept as it is now, with MS Sovereign listed in the "future ships" section.

As a final note, please preview your edits using the "show preview" button before changes. It does not benifit anyone is you make an edit which does not display properly (as happened with Pullmantur Cruises). Apologies if this sounded condescending, but I felt it would be better to fully explain the reasons for the reversals of your edits to you instead of relying simply on edit summaries. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 11:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)