User talk:Tttom

Guideline notes to myself
1. Manual of Style (writing about fiction): "As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. This may apply irrespective of the way information is presented, in or out of universe, or in some entirely different form such as a quizbook or "encyclopedia galactica". Information about copyrighted fictional worlds and plots of works of fiction can be provided only under a claim of fair use, and Wikipedia's fair-use policy holds that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible". Many works of fiction covered by Wikipedia are protected by copyright. Some works are sufficiently old that their copyright has expired, or the rights may have been released into the public domain."

2."Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves providing plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'."

3a. "Secondary information: The term secondary information describes external information usually taken from and preferably backed up with secondary sources. Please note that publications affiliated with a particular work of fiction (e.g. fan magazines), are mostly not considered suitable secondary sources."

3b. "Definition of secondary sources: In historical scholarship, a secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources."

4. Ignore all rules: "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."Tttom1 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Typical instances of tertiary sources are bibliographies, library catalogs, directories, reading lists and survey articles. Encyclopedias and textbooks are examples of materials that typically embrace both secondary and tertiary sources, presenting on the one hand commentary and analysis, while on the other attempting to provide a synoptic overview of the material available on the topic.

6. "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" ". "The person must have been the subject of published[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject".From WP:BIO

Policy shortcuts: WP:BUROWP:NOT Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

List of Pyrrhic Victories

 * Battle of Chosin Reservoir, Battle of the Imjin River, Battle of Guilford Court House, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Badajoz (1812), Battle of Grozny (1994–1995), Battle of Prague, Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, Battle of Lützen (1632), Battle of Hab, Battle of Lansdowne, Battle of Modder River, Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) - Battle of Yalu River (1904), Battle of Nanshan, Siege of Port Arthur, Battle of Mukden, Battle of Kosovo, Battle of Mount Ortigara,  Battle of Gumbinnen, Battle of Loos,  Battle of Mars-la-Tour, Battle of Crete,Battle of Petsamo (1939). Tttom1 (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chains
Thanks for making an edit at Old Rouen tramway to link to chain (length).

I was unsure about whether to measure things in chains; I wrote as such on its talk page shortly after translating it. It's a somewhat unusual measure these days, but is frequently used on British railway lines (not the most modern ones though, I think). Do you think it would be better to put it in miles or yards (whichever is more appropriate for the magnitude of the distance)?

I'd appreciate your opinion. A wholesale change won't be difficult, of course. You might prefer to reply on the article's talk page.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tttom's Glory; Or, The Stub's Defeat
I think you deserve some plaudits for that heroic sequence of edits to Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Cheers. Albrecht (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Good to hear.Tttom1 (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it up to B class.Tttom1 (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Tolkien calendar images
Hi Tom, I just noticed that some of the images you uploaded to Commons were also published in the 2009 Elendilion calendar and maybe elsewhere too. Even though you state in the image licenses that you are the owner, that might not suffice for some of the Wikimedia copyright experts since anyone can create an account here and claim to be Tom Loback. I'd recommend sending an email associated with your name to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org stating that you did in fact upload a list of files named xyz for use on Wikipedia as user TTThom. That way you're on the safe side and the images might not experience a nasty deletion tag one day. The "has been published before" argument would also be a nice cover against the fan-art removals as of today. See also this guideline.

And that said, I really enjoy your art. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Melle
The Battle of Fontenoy was great and I had no problem assessing it as B-class. However, the Battle of Melle needs more citations. Please see my notes at the Melle discussion page. After you tweak it, let me know and I'll look at it again. Djmaschek (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Balrog
Hello!

I want to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GOTHMOG-1.jpg for my record label logo. Are you the owner of this picture? And if yes, do I have your permission to use it?

/Peter Eklund Balrog Records Stockholm, Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiremen (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am the artist of the original piece as well as the digital image. I would need some additional information about your record label before I can make a decision.Tttom1 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

advice
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Blitzkrieg. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Heer
I have added tags to Mosier's citations marked dubious. I usually don't question academic sources, and perhaps it is not the source, but how you've worded the paragraph. Mosier's book relating to the suppposed myths of the First World War - effectively arguing the nonsense the Allies would not have won without American support - received very bad reviews by MilHist journals. He generally worships the Germans, at least that is how he comes across. But my question is: 1) How can the German officer corps be labelled a success when it failed? 2) How can German leadership have been superior when it failed at strategy, military intelligence and logistics? 3) The US officer corps was many times larger than any other power. Mosier has got it right that the German officer corps was larger than both France and the US in the FWW, but in the SWW, regarding the US, it is not the case. Can you clarify? PS. I'm having a go at the source, not you. Dapi89 (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mosier relies on a number of other sources as seen in his footnotes to the concluding chapter: Dupuy, Marshall, many others. He address the accusations of 'idealization' of the Germans as implicitly degrading the performance of their opponents and refers them to Dupuy's work. He argues that the high German officer cadre to soldier ratio meant the leadership was "more than able to compensate for the growing parity" also quotes Dupuy as to the relative merits of American to German leadership, perhaps he only means superior rather than larger for the Americans, he doesn't give the American absolute numbers or the ratio of officers to men. He is measuring 'success' by several standards besides the final result, and not just during the 'happy times', again he relies considerably on Dupuy. But what I wrote seems to be the gist of his conclusions, I may be conflating larger and superior in regards to the Americans - I don't know the ratio and he doesn't say, but 'superior' would be a fair representation - summing up that chapter in a single concise sentence might be an overreach on my part. I did add 'larger' later as he specifically states that in regards to the French. Its an American army and has tons of everything, including officers, not nearly as many as in Viet Nam where there was something like 2 or 3 officers per private- if my friends' reminiscences are correct, a very long tail as they say- but I'm sure plenty. Maybe I'm extrapolating from his deriving this from WWI and the German larger retained cadre - which, presumably, applies to the Americans as well since, I think, its doubtful the Americans retained a large WWI cadre being, as you say, smaller in the first place.Tttom1 (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Zulu overdone firearm sentence
You say there is "nothing wrong with that sentence". While it is apparent that the Zulu had a serious lack of understanding of how to properly handle their guns, a quick read of the rest of the article shows how the sentence you have reverted to is over the top.

Quoting it: "Zulu fire, both from those under the wall and around Oscarberg, began to find its mark. Corporal Schiess was shot in the leg, and then lost his hat to a Zulu shot; Commissary Dalton, leaning over the parapet to shoot a Zulu, was wounded in the shoulder by a bullet and dragged out of the line to have his wound dressed; Keefe, 'B' Company's drummer, suffered a skin wound to the head; Corporal Scammell, of the NNC, was shot in the back, and Private Byrne, attempting to help him, was killed by a shot to the head, as was 'Old King' Cole, another private in 'B' Company (see below at hospital section). The suppressive fire from the mountain only grew worse; Privates Scanlon, Fagan and Chick were slain. Five of the 17 killed, or died of wounds, were struck at the Front wall."

Zulu fire was heavily suppressive and killed Five of the Seventeen slain.

In light of this, the sentence you have re-added, "their marksmanship training was very poor, quality and supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent and the Zulu attitude...etc" is over the top. This is why I shortened it to the more reasonable "However, their marksmanship training was poor and the Zulu attitude...etc".

Overemphasising the lack of Zulu firearm skill and weaponry does not make sense in light of the fact that nearly a third of British deaths came from Zulu firearms.

Do you not agree?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't. None of those sentences above have citations and the imbalance is in the opinion of that editor characterizing the Zulu fire as 'heavily suppressive'. It is both anachronistic and over the top. Do the Zulus have a concept of 'suppressive fire' ? No, of course they don't. This is an example of the imbalance that permeates this article.


 * If you want to improve this article start finding citations for statements that don't have them. The parts I added about the Zulus are covered by the citations I gave when I added them. Is the editor who put that in seriously saying that Zulu fire was effective based on 5 casualties? If anything it demonstrates just the opposite, that Zulu fire was pathetically ineffective. How many Zulus are hit by fire, hundreds - how are the British able to do this if the Zulu fire was 'heavily suppressive'? Tttom1 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---The difference being that British were firing from fortified positions while the Zulu's were in the open or firing from distance (the hills). Also, it was not '5 casualties' but 5 actual deaths out of the 17 total deaths, how many of the 14 wounded were from firearms I cannot say but if it is similiar to the ratio seen in the deaths then you could likely add another 4 minimum for a total of 9 casualties from 22. Not inconsequential.

I agree that the line 'very suppressive' should be amended as it could also confuse a reader.

I cannot find reference to "supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent" in the ref provided. The ref (South African military society) does however contend that Zulu fire had "considerable nuisance value" and that the majority of Zulus were "mediocre" shots rather than 'very poor'. Also that the Zulus had the large number of (superior British) rifles captured from Isandlwana and put them to use.

Quote: "The firearms which had found their way into Zulu hands were mainly muzzle-loaders of cheap commercial manufacture. Individual Zulus, such as Chief Zibebu, one of Cetshwayo's generals, had become excellent marksmen; most others were mediocre shottists who tended to shoot high or close their eyes when pulling the trigger. However, the large number of rifles captured at Isandlwana were put to good use by the Zulus, and even if their fire was not highly accurate it had considerable nuisance value. Instances of this kind were reported in connection with the defence of Rorke's Drift and the attack on Khambula." end quote.

I am not debating that the Zulus were relatively poor shots and had (in comparison to the British) poor equipment, I am pointing out that the sentence in question will confuse the general reader into thinking that Zulu fire was useless and had no effect.

The fact that nearly a third of British deaths came from Zulu firearms shows that this is not so. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see & use talk page for article for this discussion.Tttom1 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Rorke's Drift
See the discussion page for my reponse to you points about Henderson's NNH and Stephenson's NNC. Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See the discussion page, some issues of grammar and style! Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments. Much appreciated! Catiline63 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Whybra, England's Sons
http://www.rrw.org.uk/shop/shop.php?action=list&author=Julian+Whybra Published by Gift Ltd. 2004 No ISBN on my copy. Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I'll add publisher, but this sounds somewhat obscure work and not widely accessible. I'm not saying don't use it as a source, but it shouldn't be given undue weight over better known and more available material.Tttom1 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Although rather rare, his works' not that inaccessible. No less accessible than an article in the AZWHJ, for example. As for "better" material... well, only Holme approaches him, and if the successor regiment to the 24th Foot deems his worth good enough to sell, then it can't be bad. Might be worth you having a look on the Zulu War forums to see how well-regarded Whybra is, even by other professionals. Enthusiast to enthusiast, I strongly recommend you get a copy: while rather dry reading (lists, basically), it's very useful!! Catiline63 (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, I said 'better known', and that better known material carries more weight therefore in wp. As I say, use it but try not to give it undue weight.Tttom1 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, the popularity or availability of a source has no bearing on its "weight" as a reliable source. Journal papers in particular are neither popular nor widely available but generally contain the most up-to-date research on a topic. I'd appreciate direction to the appropriate policy page if I'm wrong on this, though!!
 * As an aside, England's Sons is used by Snook (How Can Man Die Better p.312) and one of his journal papers is cited by Lock & Quantrill (Zulu Victory p.330), so the quality of his scholarship must be acceptable. After all "the scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse" (part of WP policy on reliable sources). Cheers! Catiline63 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." While other works by Mr. Whybra may be cited elsewhere Gift Ltd looks like a vanity press to me.Tttom1 (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV "Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."Tttom1 (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether you can call the book a vanity publication. I purchased my copy a couple of years ago in Foyles or Borders and I'm pretty certain that bookstores in the UK don't sell vanity publications. Nor does the British Army, whose Royal Regiment of Wales stock it alongside works by Knight, Holme, Jackson, etc etc. I can't see where NPOV applies here, as Whybra's data are not "minority views" but rather the result of the most recent genealogical research. Research that is accepted in the modern literature. Catiline63 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No ISBN, very obscure publisher. Doesn't show up on Amazon or Google except for the odd ref and the single spot you gave, Whybra has a single mention in Lock for another work back in 1990. But, as I said in the first place, use it, but try not to give it undue weight. If what he says is in fact mainstream, then it should be easy to cite those views from other sources - no?Tttom1 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Whybra's is not a "single reference" in Lock, but rather a place in the bibliography list. Older editions (the book is updated periodically) went by the title "Roll Call" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roll-Call-Killed-Survivors-Isandhlwana/dp/1873058101 and http://www.bookfinder.com/author/julian-whybra/) and were by a different publisher. All of his stuff is footnoted, with reference to the relevant official archives (Regimental, Parliamentary, National), as well as to stuff like contemporary reports and accounts. Anyway, I don't forsee us needing him anymore in the article - except perhaps if we bother to query the identity of Adendorff's companion! 8o) Catiline63 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN for Battle of Cartagena de Indias
I nominated your article Battle of Cartagena de Indias a while ago for GA and it was only just recently reviewed. I thought I would bring your attention to it. You can read the review here Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 16:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nomination, I addressed the suggestions and resubmitted it.Tttom1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I had never heard of this battle before reading this article, and I learned so much from it. Thank you. Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 02:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Spanish War again - Can you help?
Hi Ttom, apparently we are on the verge of another edit war regarding Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660). User:Foobfairbanks questions the infamous "result" entry of the article, and keeps restoring the "Commonwealth victory" in spite of Military History infobox policies, WP:UNDUE (only one source claims "victory", with the caveat that it was costly) and WP:OR by advancing a position (outright victory) when a majority of sources stressed only a "success", focusing mostly on partial English achievements (I.E.: Jamaica and Dunkirk). Can you help to clarify things?. Thank you in advance.--Darius (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolved, thank you anyway. Cheers.--Darius (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Renomination of Cartagena article...
I'd be very happy to review this the second time around, but someone will need to renominate it a second time (I don't think that I can renominate it and re-review it!). If you'd like to do so, the steps to take are at Good article nominations, and I'll then restart the reviewing process. Thanks for all the work on the article!Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks I will do so now.Tttom1 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed and updated - thanks for all the work! If you want to take it further (A class etc.) do let me know. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to critique and review it.Tttom1 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this. You know my wrists are still hurting from typing that out? I hope no one finds any more typos, though I wouldn't be surprised. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome - interesting article. Tttom1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Fort Loudoun
Great job on Siege of Fort Loudoun. I added a few tidbits about the aftermath. Bms4880 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks nice addition I'll clarify the context.Tttom1 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Corunna
Dear Tttom, great work on the Battle of Corunna page - you have my admiration. Let's hope this puts paid to any further silliness, eh? Schpinbo (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The goal is to improve an article, not to rewrite it in the info box. I hope this holds up awhile - it didn't the last time. A lot of effort and writing goes into the argument about 2 lines in the info box. That much time and effort could get the article to Good Article status. Tttom1 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree - what a pity that they're back at it now. Apparently using IP addresses instead of logging in is meant to give the impression of greater numbers.  Keep up the good work! Schpinbo (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to second this. Fine work! Mcewan (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. The article is now up to 'B' rating and I have submitted it for Peer review. I hope with constructive efforts of other editors to get it up to 'Good Article' or 'A' status. Tttom1 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Huon Peninsula campaign
G'day, Tttom. I appreciate your work on this article. Your copy edits look good. I've made a few tweaks this afternoon, but nothing too controversial I hope. Anyway, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Dunes
Hello, Tttom. First of all, let my greet your work in expanding the article. It's much better now. However, I'd like to discuss some points, because, as the article seems based mostly in English narratives, some insights had been lost. There is an analysis of the battle by Antonio Cánovas del Castillo 1 (in Spanish, I don't now if you can deal with it) which uses French, Spanish and English sources and highlights several aspects that aren't in the article: the French-English superior numbers, the role played by the English fleet was decisive, and the lack of artillery by the Spanish, Condé, English Royalist army. Cánovas basically follows Napoleon's comment on the battle 2. He also claims that the Spanish and English Royalist cavalry broke the Cromwellian infantry at the foot of the dune and retook the height, but too late the change the sign of the battle.

Regards. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Weymar Horren, thank you for your kind comments. Previously the article was all about the Commonwealth English, a couple years back I added some of the English Royalist information, but it was still very one sided towards the English and lacking neutral POV - the reader was hardly aware that this is generally considered one of Turenne's great victories. I'll take a look at that Spanish version, I don't speak Spanish but managed with various translation programs to get the gist when I did the Battle of Cartagena de Indias some time back. So far, the consensus of English and French historians give the the sides even numbers, more or less, with the Spanish having more infantry and the French more cavalry on the field. I mentioned the role of the fleet, I don't believe its generally considered more decisive than the tide aspect and I covered the the fact that the Spanish out-march their artillery. There doesn't seem to be any practical reason (beyond those of the terrain that Turenne overcame) for them to have  not brought artillery with them as Dunkirk is in no danger of falling that day, or the day after - in other words they could have waited for it, or marched up with it the next day.Tttom1 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in check old sources, there is a digitalized Spanish relation on the 1658 campaign 1, and also a French one 2. The Duke of York's memories would also be interesting, given he was present at the battle and are in English, but I don't know if they are on the Internet. Regarding to the numbers, Cánovas claims the French-Cromwellian army was superior in infantry, while the Spanish-Royalist army had the advantage in cavalry, which is also stated in the Spanish relation above. The numer of English warships firing over the Spanish-Royalist troops may have to be included in the infobox. For the rest, the only point we can discuss is wether the Cromwellian infantry was broken or not.

Regards Weymar Horren (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Werner, I have moved this discussion to the article talk page: Talk:Battle of the Dunes (1658). We can continue it there. Thanks for the great information.Tttom1 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are Cite errors: tag defined in  parameter such as  ;  the short citation then becomes.
 * 1) the easier option to append a letter onto the year value so that the   parameter becomes   and then the short citation works the same way  . while the other Oman short citations continue to work correctly and there is a visual clue for the reader (Oman 1902,...) and (Oman 1902a,...). This is what I chose to do see here.

On closer examination I realised that you did not have the correct volume name which is "A History of the Peninsular War: Jan. – Sep. 1809" and that was published in 1903. So I have altered the reference to use that volume name and date and included a convenience link to the internet archive, as the date is now 1903 this removes the need for the fancy footwork described above as the Oman volumes now have two different dates.

-- PBS (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo
Back in November 2014 you made  this edit but the long citation in the references section include more than one Hamilton-Williams book so please add the year to the citation so it is clear which book is being cited. -- PBS (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Topomapbel.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Topomapbel.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Middle-earth armies and hosts for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Middle-earth armies and hosts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Middle-earth armies and hosts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)