User talk:Rebel Redcoat/Archive 1

Welcome!
{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0"
 * style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;"|

Glorious First of June
Hi there, I noticed you made some edits to the above article, which I am currently slowly grooming in order to hopefully turn it into an FA. I was impressed with the changes you made and was wondering if you would consider copyediting the article? I realise it is a big task, but I have in the past been criticised for my prose style and I am looking for people to run over the article and smooth it out. If you would be willing to do this it would be much appreciated, but I fully understand if it is not possible. Either way, thankyou for your attention to the article and I hope to see you around.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look if I can get the chance. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

War of the Grand Alliance - Nine Years' War
Hello Rebel Redcoat! I see that you redirected War of the Grand Alliance to Nine Years' War. Such a big change should be discussed previously in the talk pages! I personally have no opinion - I reverted you for thecnical reason: with your redirect one looses the edit history of the article, thus this must be done with a proper move page. Since this can not be done with a simple page move because the new name already exist and is itself a redirect to the original page, you may have to ask for the help of an administrator, since they have "special move powers" that can bypass the problem. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, with you redirect your do not redirect the talk pages! The Ogre (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...that's quite and old discussion! Still, I have no opinion and if I had I would probably choose Nine Years' War. And yes, these kind of moves require administrative privileges. By the way, please sign your name with exactly four tildes, otherwise your name wont show (five just palces the date). The Ogre (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The history question is a matter of policy and is intended to keep track of contributors as well as knowing how the article come to be in the present form and what may have been the previous points of contention or debate. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

British Milhist
No problem, there were a few others in there as well that I missed after my run through it yesterday! Woody (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:King James II.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:King James II.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:King William III of England, (1650-1702).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:King William III of England, (1650-1702).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

William III
Looks like King Billy has avoided defeaturing, at least for now. Thanks for your edits yesterday (and for unAmericanizing my additions today). I still think there's more to be done, but hopefully I'll clean it up more over the next month. Coemgenus 19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Action of August 1702
What can I do for you by way of sourcing? Unfortunately, I don't really have any print sources on naval engagements in the War of the Spanish Succession. Choess (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thought you might be concerned because it was sourced mostly to websites. I can't really help that (vide supra) but fortunately Michael Philips work is well thought of. Choess (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Battle of Cadiz 1702.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Battle of Cadiz 1702.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC). 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? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Battle of Cadiz 1702.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Battle of Cadiz 1702.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC). 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? --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Truce of Ratisbon
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Truce of Ratisbon, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Treaty of Ratisbon. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re: ACR Battle of Vigo Bay
Can I suggest you contact the people who've left comments and ask whether they'll change to support? Otherwise, this will be closed soon for failing to reach consensus. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ramillies 1706, initial attack.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Ramillies 1706, initial attack.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ramillies 1706, breakthrough and pursuit.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Ramillies 1706, breakthrough and pursuit.PNG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Battle of Oudenarde tapestry.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Oudenarde tapestry.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) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Destruction of Lord Raglan
Nice one! I've been meaning to go back to that one and remove the *rap... Peridon (talk) 23:14, 29 January 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) 23:31, 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) 20:04, 8 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) 02:01, 21 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) 03:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uploading free images to Wikimedia Commons
Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see ). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:49, 3 April 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) 00:04, 6 May 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) 03:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

British foreign volunteers of Bolivar
I do not understand the user User:DagosNavy that delete the participation of british officers and troops in the hispanic american independence. Please help.Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't feel qualified to make a judgement, sorry. Are you sure you are not mixing me up with someone else? Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its OK Thanks.The guy desist of troll argumentation .--Santos30 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Namur
I've just translated Siege of Namur (1695) from the French, but it isn't very good or well (read: at all) cited right now. Given that you did such a good job of Siege of Namur (1692), I thought you might like to take a look and see if you could make any improvements or correct any errors or omissions.  Oreo Priest  talk 04:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good Oreo. I will take a closer look at a later date but I'm having a rest from wiki for a while. Cheers for now Rebel Redcoat (talk) 20:29, 10 August 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) 20:51, 9 August 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) 21:00, 13 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)

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) 02:36, 3 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) 20:20, 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) 20:20, 8 November 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) 19:35, 21 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) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Balaklava Maps
Your Battle of Balaklava rewrite is excellent. I'm particularly impressed with the maps you created. Can you tell me how you made those maps? I would like to create similar maps for my battle articles. Thanks.Kenmore (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm Russian so sorry about language. Your map №1 says that Fedioukine Heights were occupied by Skyderi's forces. But those heights were occupied by forses under Joseph Zhabokritsky, it is sayed in many articles including from Wikipedia. Skyderi led Odessa regiment on the redoubts. Can you correct your mistake?--78.37.211.175 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not say that the first map shows Skyderi's forces occupying the Fedioukine Heights. It is a directional arrow of Skyderi's movements crossing the Heights towards the battlefield which is consistent with the text - Meanwhile the right column, under Colonel Skyuderi, was to advance across the Chernaya via the Tractir Bridge before moving south through the Fedioukine Heights and across the North Valley to attack No.3 redoubt. Here's the original source of the map . This map is repeated in several publications, including Trevor Royle's Crimea: The Great Crimean War 1854-1856. As you correctly say, the Fedioukine Heights were occupied by Zhabokritsky, which Map No2 clearly shows (again, as described in the article). With that in mind, I am reluctant to change the map. Thank you.Rebel Redcoat (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I will add, looking at the map I can see where there might be some confusion. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Your maps are very good anyway. I was surpriced when I saw that those maps you made yourself. Good job.--95.55.153.22 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you comrade Rebel Redcoat (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Balaklava, Crimean War, etc.
I added some more comments today to the Balaklava discussion, specifically concerning Russian intentions in the battle. Other edits I made to Crimean War articles pertain to Inkerman and Eupatoria. Originally, the Inkerman article said the Russians lost 100 cannon to an Allied counterattack: 75% of all Russian artillery. I eliminated this statement after doing some research. 100 cannon lost is an astounding number; it would have rendered the Allied victory at Inkerman decisive. I don't know where the information about 100 guns lost originated. As for Eupatoria, I eliminated the sentence stating that the Russian retreat degenerated into a rout, pursued by Allied forces. I have never seen that detail written in any source before. My understanding is that the Russian attack was aborted due to heavy loss caused by the Allied naval guns; the retreat was orderly.

Interesting also will be how the eventual article about the 1854 Danube campaign, specifically the small scale Turkish victories along the river, and the Russian retreat from Silistria. The truth regarding these battles is often mistakenly portrayed in Western (i.e., non-Russian literature).Kenmore (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)