User talk:Red4tribe/Archive 1

You rather misquoted Churchill on the matter of the Battle of Britain. See the speech: Never was so much owed by so many to so few. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Sir Anon (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Geraldine O'Connell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Geraldine O'Connell. DGG (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been persistently editing the Battle of Harlem Heights and the Battle of White Plains to American victories, when the previous reference clearly states that both battles were a draw and a British victory respectively. Harlem Heights, both sides retreated and there was no clear outcome. White Plains, the American army retreated. I also see you have left the previous reference there, while stating the battle as an American victory. The reference states otherwise. So, you are making edits with unsourced or original material, which violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Be advised that I will be contacting the administrators about this vandalism this afternoon, and that your account be suspended from editing. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Written by American websites, so no wonder its listed as an American victory. The battle was a draw, like it or not. Leave it or I will report you again. You have been reported and warned once (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

Do not talk to me in that tone. You sir, are a patriotic vandal, you will just not leave it alone. I have provided three sources now, all of which list the battle as a draw. You have been warned, and reported but still you will not let it rest. Let's see what the admins have to say shall we? You cannot report me for vandalism, as it was you that began listing the battle and White Plains as an American victory, whilst referring to the same sources. (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

I have put up some alternatives on the Harlem Heights talk page. I think the answer here is in avoiding seeking clarity in mud. CLearly there is some dispute over the tactical result so lets look for alternatives. We have sources declaring both. Annother option would be to mention on the [[talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history|Military History talk page]] to see if some outside people might weigh in. Narson (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Red, just because you think the discussion is going 4-1 for an American victory, we have not reached a consensus yet on the result, so do not go about editing it. I have reverted it, when we reach a conclusion that one will stick. (Trip Johnson (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Red, it appears your editing is getting out of hand now. You are citing battles as American victories, when clearly there are NOT, as you did with the Battle of White Plains, in which the American army clearly withdrew and left Fort Washington open to attack. If this vandalism does not stop, then I'm afraid I will have to report you to the administrators for vandalising Wikipedia's pages. (Trip Johnson (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

The problem is red, you are editing some battles, White Plains for instance, to American victories, and Trenton to a Decisive victory. (Trip Johnson (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

White Plains was not an American victory in any way shape or form, since the American army retreated from the field and exposing Fort Washington to assault. Washington only won three of the battles that he ever fought; Trenton, Monmouth and Yorktown if I remember correctly. Tactically and Strategically, I don't believe Trenton was a decisive battle. Psychologically it was. Imo, it was Princeton that really re-gained New Jersey for the Americans, not Trenton. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I read your message to me. Don't worry, I don't care too much about trip comments about me. I'm having a little fun with it actually. And beleive me I have called him a few name myself. It's all for fun. I simply hope the page will be unblocked and that trip will behave. Thank you for your support. And good luck with your argument with trip :-) (Plains2007 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeWashington_BattleofPrinceton.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, 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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Trip's got a bit of learning to do on what to do and not to do and you might see that I'm actively monitoring him now because he has made some interesting edits without citation. I'm just asking you and he both back it down a little and for crying out loud no website sourcing just get the real thing and you and he will be down to a very few points of contention. I stand by the arguement that the silliest thing in wiki is the who won arguments. Tirronan (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to both of you actually and no it isn't ok for either side at all. You might check to see that I put a warning about it on his page and we are going to stop with this now. Tirronan (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, by no means am I trying to tell you how to use Wikipedia, but is there any chance you could include edit summaries when making changes? Some of your recent updates to casualty figures are difficult to follow without rationale or, in some cases, citations. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 01:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Red, I was looking at this edit in particular. There is a discrepancy between the number of U.S. wounded in the infobox and the text. Of course, there were problems with the number killed before you corrected it. It's just difficult to figure out which casualty figures are correct without more information. Thanks, AlphaEta 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, sorry to keep bothering you. Do you know how reliable the source is? The Combined Arms Research Library lists the U.S. casualty count at 126 wounded (scroll down and see Figure 4 in this document, which is based on the War Department records). Let me know what you think. Thanks, AlphaEta 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the 'Flag of the Batavian Republic' is in fact only the naval flag, not the state flag which until I find otherwise, should be presumed to be that of the current Dutch flag. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I just reverted one of your edits to Landing at Kip's Bay. Far from thinking I own this article, I merely already have an existing argument for changing this to 500. Please see the talk page and make your case where I already have started a discussion. There are also some reasons for choosing award-winning historian standpoints over website standpoints - but again, let's hash this out on the talk page. To repeat - I sincerely welcome your assistance with making this article as robust and accurate as possible, and if you are right about the 900 American forces number, it should most definitely be reflected as such in the article. Thanks! Tan | 39 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Red4tribe, I see that you've modified the killed/wounded statistics for the Philadelphia Campaign article. Would you please be as kind as to cite your source for these statistics? Alphageekpa (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Red. With reference to your new article Battle of Denmark - you do know that all that is already very well covered in Operation Weserübung? Manxruler (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't want it deleted at all. I actually thought of creating it myself a while ago. I agree that it deserves a separate article, even though the Danes only put up a couple of hours of fighting there's plenty of stuff that isn't covered by Weserübung. It just needs some references, is all, and there are some very good ones at the Weserübung article. Manxruler (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When I have the time, probably within the next few weeks, I'll give you a hand with the article and do some work on it. For now, observe what I did with the three identical in-line citations, it's called ref name=. Manxruler (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Red4tribe. I notice you put Peter van Uhm on the War in Afghanistan. I was wondering why Peter van Uhm is there and not Michael Mullen, Jock Stirrup Richard Hillier? We can discuss commanders here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Commanders_in_Chief

I guess you saw [1] and thought 205.202.240.118 had vandalized, but the diff only shows that vandalism was fixed there. It doesn't show when the vandalism was made. The edit by 205.202.240.118 actually also removed vandalism which was made earlier by 64.4.236.143. 205.202.240.118 has not vandalized since January where somebody else may have been using that IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dutchmonument.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi... when you reply on talk pages, it helps make the page visually clearer if you use indentation, beginning with one or more colons, depending on the "level" that you are replying to. For example,
If I ask a question?

And then you reply

And then someone else replies to that reply.

And someone else to that reply.

But then someone replies to the original question.

It is easier to see the flow, if you see what I mean. Instead of:
I ask a question?
And then you reply
And then someone else replies to that reply.
And someone else to that reply.
But then someone replies to the original question.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the article again to clarify some things. Just so you know the full facts: on Aruba and Bonaire, the elementary schools are in Papiamentu, but the older levels are in Dutch. Dutch is a required subject at during elementary school on both islands. On Curacao, the educational system is still in Dutch from beginning to end. On those three islands, Dutch fluency is high, and the government functions in Dutch and Papiamentu.

Sint Maarten, Saba, and Sint Eustatius are English speaking islands, and function in English for nearly all things. Dutch is taught in school, but fluency rates are not high.

Sources contradict themselves on Aruba, but that's because of the high immigration level from South America. Native Arubans that have undergone an Aruban education speak Dutch. Most immigrants function primarily in Spanish and English. Aruba has taken steps to ensure Papiamentu fluency among immigrants, by requiring people to pass a test on Papiamentu before they can renew their annual residence permit after a certain period of time (3 or 4 years, I'm not sure which). They've made no such effort to preserve Dutch, so Dutch fluency is declining. Still, children of immigrants wind up with reasonable Dutch fluency, so it won't disappear. "Virtually everyone" is highly misleading, though. Even on Bonaire. I would put Dutch fluency at somewhere around 75-80%, because many South American and North American immigrants don't speak it.

I'm a Bonaire resident, so feel free to ask if you need help making sense of what sources tell you about the Netherlands Antilles. Just remember ... we aren't a homogenous place. That's why the country never worked well, and why we are dismantling it.Kww (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please add references in the proper manner? You don't have to look far, just look at what others have done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The April 2008 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) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. Could you please provide a page number for the Ricklefs reference for the Dutch Expansion map. regards --Merbabu (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From where I got the information, his book was listedas a reference. (Red4tribe (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

OK - so I have the book - the previous edition, and there is no such information. I strongly doubt that the information is in the newer addition. --Merbabu (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a demonstration of why you should not rely on self-published websites. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You have a tendency to just revert things in the article without replying to discussions that have been posted on the talk page. I asked you a question here [2] but instead of answering, you just reverted. This signals bad faith. Please engage in discussions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deliberately "end of empire". I rather think that you should leave matters of English to those who speak it as their primary language. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a commonly used phrase. [3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we got off to a nice start, so let me apologize if I did not start off nicely and say hello. Now that you have added in a source for the heavy casualties, I will let it stay for the meantime, until exact numbers can be found for the casualties suffered by the Ottomans. I hope you don't delete this, and hope also that you stop by and say hi. Tourskin (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the big problem is the certainty of the number. Re reading Pepys and the de Ruyter site, one sees many 'correct' versions. The whole story is one of the total disarray of the English establishment and Pepys frustration at not being able to ascertain the truth. Then is the question of whether at least three ships including the frigate Unity was British or Dutch- as they had been previously captured from the Dutch. The Brits fired and sunk there own vessels. Vessels are differently identified by differnt sources. Do we include the four subsequently scuttled off Gravesend. What is a ship- do we include fore and aft rigged vessels. As for my sources-my pocket reference is a City of Rochester Society booklet that principally quotes Pepys- but that must be questioned too; and proximity to the Museum of the Royal Dockyards. ClemRutter (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't appear to have learned from your block and previous conversations, do you? When someone has reverted your change and explained why on the talk page, please reply on the talk page and address the concerns, don't simply revert again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to put back the original map and engage the discussion on the talk page. You are skating on thin ice with your reversions here given your two previous blocks for 3RR violations. Note that "3RR" is not a hard and fast limit - you can be blocked for less (from WP:3RR - "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The right thing to have done, given your history of uploading disputed self-drawn maps and very recent block for 3RR over a similar matter, would have been to have made a case for your map on the talk page of the article, explaining why your new map should replace the old and the references for what you have drawn. However, it seems you are back to your old ways of forcing your maps onto the page and then scrabbling around afterwards for dodgy self-published websites to back them up. So I have reported you for 3RR violations "in spirit". Perhaps you will be lucky and get off with a warning, but it is a warning that you need, nevertheless. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ps if you revert yourself back to the 1940 map, outline your arguments on the talk page, and give the matter a few days for others to respond, I shall withdraw the 3RR report. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• You might like to add {{PD-self}} to the above image otherwise a bot will come along and tag it for deletion, as they only recognise the copyright templates. Polly (Parrot) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems, there are some mistakes on your map. In Northern Europe, both Estonia (up until 1721) and Finland (even for longer) were under Sweden, not under the Russian Empire. Please fix this problem. H2ppyme (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The May 2008 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) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a message at your new article talk page that needs carefully addressing. Also some editors are quite concerned where an article is based on onesource - cheers SatuSuro 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I'm very sick of this User talk:Trip Johnson.He is very uncivil and I am only one among many editors who he has argued with. See talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a sample.
Take a look at the lovely name he called me here. I apologize if this is the wrong spot, but I'm not sure where this should go. He has recieved many warning in his past but has a tendency to delete everything on his talk page every time he gets a warning. Juts look at past versions. [4] Red4tribe (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend filing at WP:ANI to get the attention of an administrator. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Alternatively, you could file a wikiquette alert. xenocidic (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Red4tribe (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you readd any more of your unsourced and disputed maps [5], I am going to report you for persisting in exactly the same edits and behaviour that got you three blocks already. You have REPEATEDLY been asked to use talk pages when matters are in dispute. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted it twice now. I will give you five minutes to self revert and propose its addition on the talk page, which is the proper way to do things, if you haven't by then, I am going to report you for the various reverts that you have done on your return from your block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. Using talk pages shouldn't really appear pointless to you - it's how the community at Wikipedia works. If there appears to not be much foot traffic on the talk page concerned, you can always ask for comments on other talk pages. But anyway, it's a dramatic improvement that you have actually used the talk page this time, so I hope you keep up the right attitude. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You kindly edited this article recently adding a citation: "Tucker (2005), p. 400". According to WorldCat there were 401 books published in 2005 authored by someone called Tucker so this citation is of little use without giving the full book details in the "Sources" section of the article! I wondered if you could dig out the book details and add them to the article? Thanks. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in this matter. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this article from WP:FAC; please see the instructions at the top of FAC regarding discussion before nomination with principle contributors. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Red you have to be really careful about changes to that article, its watched by me and about 50 other editors that and 6 contribute on a regular basis. If you can't cite it you just don't do it on that article without folks getting really upset. Tirronan (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)