User talk:TJ13090

Welcome!
Hello, sorry to edit right here but I havn't yet figured out how to talk with others, thanks for the cookies.

Welcome to Wikipedia, TJ13090! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Help?
Sometimes it helps to add at the bottom of the article to cite your sources. Hopefully this helps. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  08:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Brazos Santiago
A tag has been placed on Battle of Brazos Santiago requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676  You gotta problem with that? 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

USS Maine
Please do not use the talk page as a forum for opinion, and please do not edit-war to keep it there. I agree with your removal of the Northwoods bit as irrelevant, by the way. Also, I can help you with those cites on the Battle of Brazos Santiago.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've named the Handbook of Texas ref so you don't have to put it in multiple times, and added so it automatically lists them.   Acroterion  (talk)  21:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi, could you please get into the habbit of using edit summaries, they're pretty useful to other editors. It's quite a chore at first but it becomes second nature eventually. Equendil Talk 00:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to War of 1812 has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 03:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the sections just above. You cannot do cut&paste moves. And you cannot cut&paste the contents to two different places. If the article is at the wrong name, you must get a proper move done. Anything less is a gross violation of the GFDL, leaving the history for who wrote what at the previous location. Cut&paste moves are simply not allowed. I have no position on what is the proper name. But continuing to revert to your cut&paste move, and to the blanking of the one page, is disruptive and needs to stop. Do it right, or do not do it at all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Guanica
A tag has been placed on Battle of Guanica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Jek Shadow  Ťâłķ 04:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Apology
Sorry for marking your edits as vandalism. I had you confused with an editor that was making vandalism edits. Again, sorry about that. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Notice
If there's one thing that I do not appreciate is when someone comes along and pastes an article created by me or someone else and tries to take credit for it's creation. That is called "plagiarism" and is against Wikipedia policy which states that you must make sure that your work is "original" and "not" someone else's. You have violated the copyrights of the creators of the "Puerto Rican Campaign" which was created in 2008, by posting "The Battle of Fajardo", "Battle of Desideria (Battle of Yauco", "Battle of Guanica"  May 19, 2009. Said articles will be redirected to the Puerto Rican Campaign and any attempted by you part to undo so will be considered a violations of the originators rights and you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is license under the GNU that requires that "all previous authors of the work must be attributed, that's why "copy and paste moves" are not allowed here. -- J mundo 02:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please accept my dearest apology and unhumble complaint
No problem. I will disregard your uncalled and disrespectful remark "ass monkeys". In regard to the "Battle of San Juan (1898)", that is one article that I did not wright, another user wrote that one. He claimed that there were three battles in San Juan in 1898, which I personally believe that can be resumed into one article. That was the beginning of placing the San Juan Battles in accordance to how they occurred. Of course San Juan has been the subject to various battles, but only those which have an article in Wikipedia are named in the disambiguation page and placed in order for now.

You state: "If you look on the History of Puerto Rico page you will find what I am saying to be true. I am smart enough to have found you come from Puerto Rico. However, this does not give you the right to change history whenever you like. Even if you come from the island of topic." I want to make one thing clear to you. I'm considered by the government of Puerto Rico as one of their top military historians, I am also the official historian of the United States Naval Service Association and the editor of the Puerto Rican Military Channel of "El Boricua". I can assure you that by writing about the historical topics which have often been omitted by the so-called historians who were often biased and prejudiced, is not rewriting history. That is why in the history books that we were given prior 1960 in the U.S. school systems, never mentioned the contributions which Blacks, Hispanics and Asians made to the United States. It took historians, such as myself, a lot of work and research to correct this wrong. My work has been recognized by the Pentagon and the governments of the U.S. and P.R. (I guess I'm not much of an ass monkeys, am I?). Let's let this be water under the bridge. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Daniel Randall Jr.
A tag has been placed on Robert Daniel Randall Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's. ttonyb1 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to have the copyright violation tag removed, please use the article talk page to explain the copyrighted message on the page. Someone will review it and if they are comfortable with the explanation, they will remove the CSD tag.  ttonyb1 (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Edward321 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

re: edits to Battle of Ambos Nogales
Greetings TJ! I came across the recent troubles with this article, and thought I would drop some friendly, third party advice: 1. One of your recent edit summaries referred to this article being "your article". I am sure that was just a use of common words, but you should be careful. Wikipedia has a policy regarding editors claiming articles as their own. I am simply advising you to be careful about using words like that and acting in such a way that makes other editors think you are claiming ownership.

2. You noted that in an encyclopedia, truth is paramount. Certainly, there is no good editor who does not want an article to reflect "truth". The problem is, truth can sometimes be a matter of opinion. One of wikipedia's strongest policies is its policy on verifiability. When paired with the guidelines on reliable sourtces helps to increase the chances that what exists is truth instead of opinion. I think if you could find a reliable source to support our claim, other editors would be a lot more willing to see your view point.

This is nothing more than advice from an editor who has made his share of mistakes. I wish you the best of luck in your editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ambos Nogales
No, reports are not facts. Everyone on this list was reported dead when they were not. Military opponents can spread false information that is listed in reports as true. Reports can be based on false interpretation of events, such as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or be deliberately false, like the alleged "missile gap". Governments can deliberately report false things about their opponents, such as some of the British anti-German propaganda of WWI. Reports can be based on wishful thinking, such as the German military convincing itself that they had solved the problems that stymied Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Reports can grossly under or overestimate opponent's actual military capabilities - the Johnson administration underestimated the abilities of the Viet Cong, while George McClellan both received and passed on reports that doubled the number of Confederate troops he was actually facing.

Casualty rates from this battle are from Huachuca Illustrated, which you claim to have used. . The last paragraph lists more men killed in just the 10th Cavalry than your article gives for all American forces. There is no body count given for the Mexican side, and the website does not say info on the alleged Germans came from an official report. Besides, I've shown that official reports can be accidently or deliberately wrong.

This source does not prove that any American saw the two dead men. It does not prove they were Germans. It does not they were soldiers. It does not prove they were spies. It does not prove they were agents of the German government. It does not prove they existed.

The article is not your article and anyone can edit it. . Wikipedia requires articles to have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia required articles to be be verifiable - it deals in facts, not "truth". I hope you're willing to learn that. Edward321 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet report
Please note that I have filed this sockpuppet report, which concerns this account. You may respond there if you like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)