![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Everything on Archive #1 is from 2017 to the end of 2018. J-Man11 ( talk) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, J-Man11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua ( talk) 20:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi - Please can you read WP:CITE on how to add material to wikipedia and how to cite it. Unfortunately the material you added was unsourced. Please do not add uncited material to wikipedia. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 13:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reading and Newcastle ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - As previously requested, please can add citations to your edits. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - Please can you add citations to your edits as required by WP:CITE. I see that you have added unsourced information on brigade structure to articles such as 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) and 20th Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). On Wikipedia we assess article quality on the basis, inter alia, of the completeness of the citations. Many of the these are articles were fully referenced articles but are now only partly sourced following your interventions. I thought I would give you a few days to insert citations. Thanks, Dormskirk ( talk) 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - Thank you for starting to add citations to your edits. Please note that per WP:CIRC you should not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Note in particular that the article Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989 is largely unsourced and therefore unverifiable - otherwise you could have lifted a source from there. Dormskirk ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I am not sure why you persist in ignoring wikipedia's guidelines on adding citations. We do not want to spend all our time removing unsourced material! Sorry to go on about it but you have added an extensive amount of unsourced material to articles and it is really time consuming to remove it all. Also please have regard for WP:PROSE and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Articles should normally be written in flowing prose rather than list form. Including long lists of regimental sub-units down to company level seems to me like a directory. Please spend some time reading our guidelines. Thank you. Dormskirk ( talk) 15:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I note that you have added unsourced material three times now to several articles including 42nd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). Please note that this could be deemed edit warring and you may be blocked from using wikipedia. Dormskirk ( talk) 07:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
6 Word "memoirs": He came and sat, I left
We saw each other, I looked back
It was only 2 hours long
By the time it was done
We couldn't see the forgotten people - I actually thought about this one because its about how someone like me can't see people who might not be 'there' but are 'there' in spirit or feelings.
He was here, but not around - Thinking about how you might be thinking or talking about someone in such detail, its as if they are there, but they really aern't
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Regiment (1993), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Scottish ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army Regional Forces, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull, West Midlands and Midlands ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on British Army Structure 2007, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Regards, SshibumXZ ( talk · contribs). 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating East German Army 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 01:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Why have you blanked the page? Xx236 ( talk) 06:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army 1989, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington, England ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you've recently created pages such as British Army 1989, US National Guard 1989 and Swiss Army 1989. Some editors here are curious about the significance of this years and these organizations. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Foo Army in 1989. Thank you - wolf 10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Artillery Structure 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 00:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating Royal Marines 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 01:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Engineer Corps Structure 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 02:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
US Army Europe Structure 1989, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
00:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
G'day J-Man11, thanks for your contributions, particularly your creation of the various 1989 orders of battle. I think there is a general consensus that these "orders of battle" meet the Wikipedia criteria for having a stand-alone list, but they may need to be renamed to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to explain that it is very important that everything on Wikipedia is verifiable using reliable sources. Unfortunately you haven't yet added the sources for these lists, and it is really important that you do that as soon as possible, so that readers and other editors can check that the sources used are reliable and that the information contained in them is correct. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and isn't optional. You should be aware that editors may delete unsourced information from any article at any time, per WP:UNSOURCED. I strongly suggest you add citations to the lists you have already created and then do that as you go forward, to avoid deletion of your work. Information on how to add citations can be found here. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions about anything or would like some help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Army Pacific Structure 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 01:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, J-Man11,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Royal Marines 1989 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Marines 1989 .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
TheLongTone ( talk) 14:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Please add verifiable sources to your articles and do not create duplicates such as First Strike Brigade which will be created fom 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). Thank you. Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The article First Strike Brigade has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Hello,
I'm proposing to delete your entry First Strike Brigade because a) it is highly unreferenced b) it is an orphan c) there are already many currently related entries you could place your (unsourced) data on, namely:
Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army
Future of the British Army (Army 2020 Refine)
1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)
Thank you.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Kindly be more careful; this edit not only inserted a non-existent 'U.S. Army Korea' which has never existed - the actual formation is Eighth United States Army, but also very strangely added parts of United States Army South, in Central America, in a completely different army command, to the Army Pacific listing. Please do not make these mistake in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
At some point, soon, it would be good if you would respond to some of the posts here on your talk page, or at some of the article/project talk pages you've been notified of, to at least acknowledge the concerns posted here, if not to address some of the comments personally addressed to you. You're editing mistakes are causing others to have to clean up after you. So far, your only talk page edits, anywhere, have been to delete notices previously posted here. It would be nice to know you're aware of the issues and concerns and will attempt to improve. Otherwise, WP:CIR becomes a concern. - wolf 21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been going over your edits, errors, non-response to all the talkpage requests from other editors, and blanking of their messages. As Dormskirk warned you last month, this can be deemed WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if you do not start communicating. Please therefore be warned that you have, at the most, two weeks to change your behaviour before I personally begin administrator action against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1995 British Army order of battle 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 British Army order of battle 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. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
You can simply Archive your talk like I do. I and others note your articles but they vastly lack verifiable sources and don't conform to Wikipedia guidelines.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been going over your edits, errors, non-response to all the talkpage requests from other editors, and blanking of their messages. I've also noted that you've just blanked my previous warning. As Dormskirk warned you last month, this can be deemed WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if you do not start communicating. This is a community, not just a space in which you can write anything without interacting. Please therefore be warned that you have, at the most, two weeks (about 13 days) to change your behaviour before I personally begin administrator action against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 2 Regiment RLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Norwegian Air Force order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace and submit to WP:AFC when the issues are addressed. Thanks for starting this, it's just not quite ready for the mainspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 United States Army Pacific order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for two issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 US Artillery order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in the draftspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 US Engineer Corps order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 13:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Royal Air Force Structure 2020 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Air Force Structure 2020 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Take this is as a formal warning, you can't just go on creating pages which are in conflict with advise tendered to you without even so much as responding, much less refuting the advise. Almost all of your page creations are unsourced, do not have lede and are in all probability, non-notable. Unless you address these concerns in one way or the other, you would probably be blocked indefinitely. People have ever so kindly tried to start a conversation with you, but, your response—or lack thereof—has always been the same. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and hence, communication is deemed utterly necessary on it. Regards, SshibumXZ ( talk · contribs). 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— 2007 British Army order of battle—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Following repeated warnings by myself and other editors, I have now blocked you for two weeks.
Your articles are poorly-introduced, unreferenced lists without context, and you have totally refused to communicate ( Wikipedia:Communication is required) in order to improve them as part of this site's collaborative editing process. You MUST COMMUNICATE or you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked in due course.
You may appeal this block on this talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Swiss Air Force order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating 1989 US Marines order of battle, J-Man11!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please work on this in draftspace.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Irish Army order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please look at your 'User contributions' on the left-hand side of your page. All your unreferenced creations have now been moved to draftspace and can be worked on there. If you need any help, please ask me or at the WP:TEAHOUSE or see Help:Referencing for beginners.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Re: Draft:1989 Norwegian Army order of battle seems to be a superfluous/duplicate work of the articles Allied Forces North Norway and Allied Forces South Norway. Regards, noclador ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Some things I've done:
References
[ Army Yeomanry / Militia Units by Country]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1989 Swiss Army order of battle 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 03:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Following repeated warnings by myself and other editors, I have now blocked you for two weeks.
Your articles are poorly-introduced, unreferenced lists without context, and you have totally refused to communicate ( Wikipedia:Communication is required) in order to improve them as part of this site's collaborative editing process. You MUST COMMUNICATE or you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked in due course.
You may appeal this block on this talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Netherlands Army Structure 1989 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.scribd.com/doc/37695/NATO-Order-of-Battle-1989. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
As you have just discovered, if you didn't realise it already, you cannot just copy material from a source into Wikipedia, as that is a copyright violation. Also, that source is a WP:SPS and is therefore not reliable. It cannot therefore be used. If you are interested in actually contributing to Wikipedia, it must be done within our policies, especially verifiability. You need to start listening to the advice you are being given by experienced editors, familiarise yourself with our policies, and start communicating, or you will likely get blocks of increasing length. Our patience isn't limitless. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
in adding 2007 Orbats and 1989 Orbats, the former which is not really needed for uniit articles--just current structure/formation will do or a brief sourced summary of what the unit was like post 1945. In any case, you rely on a single-source or untrustworthy/unreliable Orders or Battle as your references and use those to justify your 2007 ORBATs for various units. This must stop. At least enter in talk pages why you think it is worthy to add 2007 orbats. Or as I mentioned, do not add them wantonly.
As for the 1989, @Noclador and other users like myself have been improving yoru 1989 British Army structure, out from using just the surce Watson. Perhaps you could focus on that instead.
Thanks.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2007 British Army order of battle 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle 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.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless you start communicating on talk pages, you will be blocked within three to four days, indefinitely, for disruptive editing. Communication is not optional here. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Royal Artillery Regiments has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Sammartinlai (
talk)
07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 27th Regiment, Royal Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/27th-regiment-ra.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 45th Regiment, Royal Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/45th-regiment-ra.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Merger_proposal
But it doesn't seem to address either nomination or a merger or a deletion or why you believe 2007 is such an important year to add to all the British Army unit pages/entries.
I post this here so other users can also comment.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You cannot just copy and paste your FANDOM articles. FANDOM is for trivial usage. Wikipedia is for verifiable content. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Note: Please
indent your posts as well. Thank you -
wolf
16:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from constantly adding a 2007 Orbat to British Army unit pages. Already there's a AfD regarding your entry/page 2007 British Army order of battle on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle questioning the significance of a full ORBAT/Structure for 2007. You should provide a response on that AfD why the article must be keep. Your constant adding of the 2007 (and sometimes 1989 Orbat) to unit pages need to be justified, well sourced (don't just use archive pages and claim it as your own work), and please, do not copy over from FANDOM or Wikia sites.
Thank You. Appreciate if you could reply here first before adding 2007 ORBATs/Structures to pages.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 143rd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington, England ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of British Army Regiments (1800) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Army Regiments (1800) 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Buckshot06: - it has become quite clear that J-Man here is following these talk pages (both here and on related articles), is fully capable of replying (in English) and their recent reply was not an intention to enagage with other editors and discuss their problematic editing, but was simply to try and stave off the pending indefinite block. They are still editing daily, creating more and more new pages that are not ready for article space and and at the same time, refusing to respond to any requests for comment or questions posed to them on any talk page. They've got poor Sam pulling the hair out of his head and if something does't change soon, he's gonna be bald. - wolf 15:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've re-added the 'welcome' template to the top of this page. Keep it handy and read through all the links. It has lots of useful info. - wolf 03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not pulling my hair out. I'm just seeing 2007 (and sometimes 1989) and funny entries created. Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
2007 is not a significant year. It is 3 years before SDSR 2010 and around 9 years since SDR 1998. I fail to see the significance. All you do is use a single source--the archives of the British Army website--and dubious sources. So it is not siginificant. Please do not treat this as a FANDOM site. Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Further comment. Army 2020 (the original) started in 2013, not even 2010, so 2007 is way off the target for any UK Defence Review. Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok J-Man11, let me show your most recent references to the 2007 British Army order of battle article.
"Divisions and Brigades". 2007-10-13. Retrieved 2018-11-06. "42 (NW) Brigade". 2008-02-09. Retrieved 2018-10-01. "1 RIFLES". 2007-10-05. Retrieved 2018-10-01. "51 (Scottish) Brigade". Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 21 September 2018. "7 RIFLES". 2008-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-01.
Or better yet, I show the edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2007_British_Army_order_of_battle&action=history . All I see are archives to the British Army's website in 2007, a website clearly not officially used anymore. That proves that there were these units in the British Army in and around 2007. It does not prove 1) that they were significantly created or merged (as you argue) in 2007 or 2) that they were a result of defence reviews or changes made in 2007 or a few years before (few as not in more than 5).
For example, the source "Divisions and Brigades". It just lists the brigades and sub-units at that archive page. How do we know they were merged and/or created in 2007? Why was that so? (As in, what Defence Review or British Army plan?) Were the majority or units merged or created then? How even then does it prove that 2007 is a significant year to warrant an article for it?
Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I know they were merged because regiments like the rifles, yorkshire, duke of lancaster's and a few others were created in 2007, also I have 4 different webpages for 2007 structures, say compared to 2002 when they were re-organized
Me ( talk) 23:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as
10th Regiment Royal Artillery, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our
policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the
Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
IWI (
chat)
17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
IWI (
chat)
20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Since I'm unblocked now, can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I'm not going to edit anything (text wise) till I know, because I have a lot of stuff to add and I don't want to be banned again.. J-Man11 ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this is from the now defunct gamer/ORBAT website orbat.com, who were owned by General Data LLC, as was Tiger Lily Publications. They had the same publisher and editor, and Tiger Lily Publications was essentially a "vanity" publisher (per WP:SPS) of ORBATs associated with the other two entities. So anything from them isn't going to be considered to be reliably published. Don't use anything linked to orbat.com, General Data LLC, or Tiger Lily Publications. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
It sucks that you have to do all this work just to add like 20 words that, more than likely, no one will view.. J-Man11 ( talk) 12:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, J-Man11. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on British Army Structure in 1914 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 8 Regiment RCT 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, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I am not sure why you have created 1st Battalion Scots Guards. This is actually the same military unit as Scots Guards as the regiment only has one battalion and we do not allow competing articles on the same subject. Also it was not properly sourced as required by WP:CITE and WP:RS and it was almost entirely in list form contrary to WP:PROSE. Please can I again, respectfully, ask you to start reading Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 09:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I have taken the trouble to re-write the article, which you had posted in list form, as prose (see WP:PROSE). Once it was rewritten it was much easier for the reader to follow the story (which is why we prefer prose). It was then quite apparent to me that your list was inaccurate. During that period British Army units returned to the UK, typically every three years, and your list did not include at least one of those tours in the UK. Once the article was in prose that omission was much more obvious. Please can you study and try and write in prose. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no reliable evidence that I've seen saying the formation will be called that. House of Commons sources refer to the 'first Strike Brigade' which does not mean the Army will form a formation known as the '1st Strike Brigade'. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone named meat something keeps removing the facebook references that are from the government facebook.. I was told I can use it as long as it is official.. WTF? J-Man11 ( talk) 16:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you uploaded File:Albanian Land Force Structure.png. Thank you for contributing OrBat graphics. However yoru graphic contains some errors:
Please update/correct the graphic or I will remove it from the article as it contains too many errors. Best regards, noclador ( talk) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, J-Man11!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
CoolSkittle (
talk)
00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Hi - I see that you have added a series of articles to wikipedia that are not properly cited: 3 Regiment RLC, 8 Artillery Support Regiment RLC and 12 Regiment RLC. One of these articles has just one citation (8 Artillery Support Regiment RLC) and another uses wikipedia as a source (12 Regiment RLC). As previously mentioned to you wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Dormskirk ( talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that this edit introduced a major sourcing error into 5th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). You stated the data came from the (excellent) BAOR 1989 document.
But 5th Airborne Brigade as it was in 1989 was neither in BAOR in Germany, nor committed to Germany in wartime; it was actually the only major formation allocated for home defence, and based in the UK (Beevor 1989). So the source you added *COULD NOT* contain the data you said it had, and you evidently did not check before copying the data wholesale from Noclador's previously draft page, Structure of the British Army in 1989. Just because the BAOR document is listed at the bottom of that page does not mean that everything is sourced from that document. Noclador actually built most of the data from Andy Johnson's original "NATO 1989 order of battle", widely accessible from Scribd or microarmormayhem, now about v.8.
This again emphasizes your remaining very careless attitude to sources; you would have only had to open the linked BAOR 1989 document and done a search for 5th Airborne Brigade to find that the data was not there. The problem at that page has been fixed now accidentally by BlueD954's rather unwarranted continual rollbacks of your edits, but the central problem remains: you're introducing errors in sourcing here, there, and everywhere.
You're not really committed to WP:Verifiability; you're still treating this as (a bit more than, after constant pestering) your fan pages.
I am not quite decided whether it is necessary to block you, or you can be tutored further. Peacemaker67, your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
all work to be done in draft space or sandbox only. J-Man is not to move a single page to main space. He is to request a move from one of us or a new page reviewer. If he moves a page to main space, it's an automatic block (30 days?). As for main space edits, he must propose them on the talk page. Any edits to an article in main space on his own... same thing, automatic block. Sounds harsh, but it's not as bad as being blocked right now. This way, he can continue to build, contribute and learn, without disrupting the project. Cant learn much if he's blocked right now and where will he be when the block ends in a month? No better off. I think this could work..And if there was a designated mentor, that would help too. I think J-man really does want to contribute, its just taking him longer than most to catch on. This is JMHO, would still like to hear what Hawkeye has to say. Cheers - wolf 11:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Endorsed. J-Man11, we're closely monitoring your edits (though we would much prefer not to have to). You are not to move any article from draftspace or your sandbox, or create articles in article space until further notice. I will block you for a month plus if you don't comply with these restrictions. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I've made a few drafts if you guys wouldn't mind looking at them to help me out..:
I need to find more info on the signal group, but the others I had a good amount on.. J-Man11 ( talk) 22:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought you said that I couldn't create pages unless they were drafts for a while..? J-Man11 ( talk) 17:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
When setting a title of an article, lets say the "United States of America" if I do the [[ thing, how would I re-direct it? In a sense? If I would type in say "The United States of America". J-Man11 ( talk) 21:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Everything on Archive #1 is from 2017 to the end of 2018. J-Man11 ( talk) 16:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, J-Man11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua ( talk) 20:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi - Please can you read WP:CITE on how to add material to wikipedia and how to cite it. Unfortunately the material you added was unsourced. Please do not add uncited material to wikipedia. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 13:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reading and Newcastle ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - As previously requested, please can add citations to your edits. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 20:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi - Please can you add citations to your edits as required by WP:CITE. I see that you have added unsourced information on brigade structure to articles such as 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) and 20th Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). On Wikipedia we assess article quality on the basis, inter alia, of the completeness of the citations. Many of the these are articles were fully referenced articles but are now only partly sourced following your interventions. I thought I would give you a few days to insert citations. Thanks, Dormskirk ( talk) 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - Thank you for starting to add citations to your edits. Please note that per WP:CIRC you should not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Note in particular that the article Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989 is largely unsourced and therefore unverifiable - otherwise you could have lifted a source from there. Dormskirk ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I am not sure why you persist in ignoring wikipedia's guidelines on adding citations. We do not want to spend all our time removing unsourced material! Sorry to go on about it but you have added an extensive amount of unsourced material to articles and it is really time consuming to remove it all. Also please have regard for WP:PROSE and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Articles should normally be written in flowing prose rather than list form. Including long lists of regimental sub-units down to company level seems to me like a directory. Please spend some time reading our guidelines. Thank you. Dormskirk ( talk) 15:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I note that you have added unsourced material three times now to several articles including 42nd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). Please note that this could be deemed edit warring and you may be blocked from using wikipedia. Dormskirk ( talk) 07:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
6 Word "memoirs": He came and sat, I left
We saw each other, I looked back
It was only 2 hours long
By the time it was done
We couldn't see the forgotten people - I actually thought about this one because its about how someone like me can't see people who might not be 'there' but are 'there' in spirit or feelings.
He was here, but not around - Thinking about how you might be thinking or talking about someone in such detail, its as if they are there, but they really aern't
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Regiment (1993), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Scottish ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army Regional Forces, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull, West Midlands and Midlands ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on British Army Structure 2007, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Regards, SshibumXZ ( talk · contribs). 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating East German Army 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 01:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Why have you blanked the page? Xx236 ( talk) 06:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Army 1989, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington, England ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you've recently created pages such as British Army 1989, US National Guard 1989 and Swiss Army 1989. Some editors here are curious about the significance of this years and these organizations. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Foo Army in 1989. Thank you - wolf 10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Artillery Structure 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 00:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating Royal Marines 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 01:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Engineer Corps Structure 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 02:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
US Army Europe Structure 1989, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
00:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
G'day J-Man11, thanks for your contributions, particularly your creation of the various 1989 orders of battle. I think there is a general consensus that these "orders of battle" meet the Wikipedia criteria for having a stand-alone list, but they may need to be renamed to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. I wanted to explain that it is very important that everything on Wikipedia is verifiable using reliable sources. Unfortunately you haven't yet added the sources for these lists, and it is really important that you do that as soon as possible, so that readers and other editors can check that the sources used are reliable and that the information contained in them is correct. Verifiability is a core content policy on Wikipedia, and isn't optional. You should be aware that editors may delete unsourced information from any article at any time, per WP:UNSOURCED. I strongly suggest you add citations to the lists you have already created and then do that as you go forward, to avoid deletion of your work. Information on how to add citations can be found here. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions about anything or would like some help. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Meatsgains. J-Man11, thanks for creating US Army Pacific Structure 1989!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Meatsgains( talk) 01:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, J-Man11,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Royal Marines 1989 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Marines 1989 .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
TheLongTone ( talk) 14:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Please add verifiable sources to your articles and do not create duplicates such as First Strike Brigade which will be created fom 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). Thank you. Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The article First Strike Brigade has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Hello,
I'm proposing to delete your entry First Strike Brigade because a) it is highly unreferenced b) it is an orphan c) there are already many currently related entries you could place your (unsourced) data on, namely:
Administrative structure of the field forces of the British Army
Future of the British Army (Army 2020 Refine)
1st Armoured Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom)
Thank you.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Kindly be more careful; this edit not only inserted a non-existent 'U.S. Army Korea' which has never existed - the actual formation is Eighth United States Army, but also very strangely added parts of United States Army South, in Central America, in a completely different army command, to the Army Pacific listing. Please do not make these mistake in future. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
At some point, soon, it would be good if you would respond to some of the posts here on your talk page, or at some of the article/project talk pages you've been notified of, to at least acknowledge the concerns posted here, if not to address some of the comments personally addressed to you. You're editing mistakes are causing others to have to clean up after you. So far, your only talk page edits, anywhere, have been to delete notices previously posted here. It would be nice to know you're aware of the issues and concerns and will attempt to improve. Otherwise, WP:CIR becomes a concern. - wolf 21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been going over your edits, errors, non-response to all the talkpage requests from other editors, and blanking of their messages. As Dormskirk warned you last month, this can be deemed WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if you do not start communicating. Please therefore be warned that you have, at the most, two weeks to change your behaviour before I personally begin administrator action against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1995 British Army order of battle 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 British Army order of battle 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. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
You can simply Archive your talk like I do. I and others note your articles but they vastly lack verifiable sources and don't conform to Wikipedia guidelines.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been going over your edits, errors, non-response to all the talkpage requests from other editors, and blanking of their messages. I've also noted that you've just blanked my previous warning. As Dormskirk warned you last month, this can be deemed WP:DISRUPTIVE editing if you do not start communicating. This is a community, not just a space in which you can write anything without interacting. Please therefore be warned that you have, at the most, two weeks (about 13 days) to change your behaviour before I personally begin administrator action against you. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 2 Regiment RLC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Norwegian Air Force order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace and submit to WP:AFC when the issues are addressed. Thanks for starting this, it's just not quite ready for the mainspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 United States Army Pacific order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for two issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 US Artillery order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in the draftspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 US Engineer Corps order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 13:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 13:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Royal Air Force Structure 2020 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Air Force Structure 2020 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Take this is as a formal warning, you can't just go on creating pages which are in conflict with advise tendered to you without even so much as responding, much less refuting the advise. Almost all of your page creations are unsourced, do not have lede and are in all probability, non-notable. Unless you address these concerns in one way or the other, you would probably be blocked indefinitely. People have ever so kindly tried to start a conversation with you, but, your response—or lack thereof—has always been the same. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and hence, communication is deemed utterly necessary on it. Regards, SshibumXZ ( talk · contribs). 02:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— 2007 British Army order of battle—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Following repeated warnings by myself and other editors, I have now blocked you for two weeks.
Your articles are poorly-introduced, unreferenced lists without context, and you have totally refused to communicate ( Wikipedia:Communication is required) in order to improve them as part of this site's collaborative editing process. You MUST COMMUNICATE or you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked in due course.
You may appeal this block on this talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Swiss Air Force order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please work on this in draftspace.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating 1989 US Marines order of battle, J-Man11!
Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please work on this in draftspace.
To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Irish Army order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please look at your 'User contributions' on the left-hand side of your page. All your unreferenced creations have now been moved to draftspace and can be worked on there. If you need any help, please ask me or at the WP:TEAHOUSE or see Help:Referencing for beginners.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Boleyn. J-Man11, thanks for creating 1989 Portuguese Army order of battle!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Boleyn ( talk) 19:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Re: Draft:1989 Norwegian Army order of battle seems to be a superfluous/duplicate work of the articles Allied Forces North Norway and Allied Forces South Norway. Regards, noclador ( talk) 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Some things I've done:
References
[ Army Yeomanry / Militia Units by Country]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1989 Swiss Army order of battle 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 03:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Following repeated warnings by myself and other editors, I have now blocked you for two weeks.
Your articles are poorly-introduced, unreferenced lists without context, and you have totally refused to communicate ( Wikipedia:Communication is required) in order to improve them as part of this site's collaborative editing process. You MUST COMMUNICATE or you will almost certainly be indefinitely blocked in due course.
You may appeal this block on this talkpage. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Netherlands Army Structure 1989 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.scribd.com/doc/37695/NATO-Order-of-Battle-1989. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
As you have just discovered, if you didn't realise it already, you cannot just copy material from a source into Wikipedia, as that is a copyright violation. Also, that source is a WP:SPS and is therefore not reliable. It cannot therefore be used. If you are interested in actually contributing to Wikipedia, it must be done within our policies, especially verifiability. You need to start listening to the advice you are being given by experienced editors, familiarise yourself with our policies, and start communicating, or you will likely get blocks of increasing length. Our patience isn't limitless. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
in adding 2007 Orbats and 1989 Orbats, the former which is not really needed for uniit articles--just current structure/formation will do or a brief sourced summary of what the unit was like post 1945. In any case, you rely on a single-source or untrustworthy/unreliable Orders or Battle as your references and use those to justify your 2007 ORBATs for various units. This must stop. At least enter in talk pages why you think it is worthy to add 2007 orbats. Or as I mentioned, do not add them wantonly.
As for the 1989, @Noclador and other users like myself have been improving yoru 1989 British Army structure, out from using just the surce Watson. Perhaps you could focus on that instead.
Thanks.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2007 British Army order of battle 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle 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.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Unless you start communicating on talk pages, you will be blocked within three to four days, indefinitely, for disruptive editing. Communication is not optional here. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Royal Artillery Regiments has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Sammartinlai (
talk)
07:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 27th Regiment, Royal Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/27th-regiment-ra.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 45th Regiment, Royal Artillery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/royal-artillery/45th-regiment-ra.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gavbadger ( talk) 23:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:2007_British_Army_order_of_battle#Merger_proposal
But it doesn't seem to address either nomination or a merger or a deletion or why you believe 2007 is such an important year to add to all the British Army unit pages/entries.
I post this here so other users can also comment.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You cannot just copy and paste your FANDOM articles. FANDOM is for trivial usage. Wikipedia is for verifiable content. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 04:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello and
welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Note: Please
indent your posts as well. Thank you -
wolf
16:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from constantly adding a 2007 Orbat to British Army unit pages. Already there's a AfD regarding your entry/page 2007 British Army order of battle on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 British Army order of battle questioning the significance of a full ORBAT/Structure for 2007. You should provide a response on that AfD why the article must be keep. Your constant adding of the 2007 (and sometimes 1989 Orbat) to unit pages need to be justified, well sourced (don't just use archive pages and claim it as your own work), and please, do not copy over from FANDOM or Wikia sites.
Thank You. Appreciate if you could reply here first before adding 2007 ORBATs/Structures to pages.
Sammartinlai ( talk) 02:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 143rd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wallington, England ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of British Army Regiments (1800) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Army Regiments (1800) 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. Sammartinlai ( talk) 08:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Buckshot06: - it has become quite clear that J-Man here is following these talk pages (both here and on related articles), is fully capable of replying (in English) and their recent reply was not an intention to enagage with other editors and discuss their problematic editing, but was simply to try and stave off the pending indefinite block. They are still editing daily, creating more and more new pages that are not ready for article space and and at the same time, refusing to respond to any requests for comment or questions posed to them on any talk page. They've got poor Sam pulling the hair out of his head and if something does't change soon, he's gonna be bald. - wolf 15:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've re-added the 'welcome' template to the top of this page. Keep it handy and read through all the links. It has lots of useful info. - wolf 03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not pulling my hair out. I'm just seeing 2007 (and sometimes 1989) and funny entries created. Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
2007 is not a significant year. It is 3 years before SDSR 2010 and around 9 years since SDR 1998. I fail to see the significance. All you do is use a single source--the archives of the British Army website--and dubious sources. So it is not siginificant. Please do not treat this as a FANDOM site. Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Further comment. Army 2020 (the original) started in 2013, not even 2010, so 2007 is way off the target for any UK Defence Review. Sammartinlai ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok J-Man11, let me show your most recent references to the 2007 British Army order of battle article.
"Divisions and Brigades". 2007-10-13. Retrieved 2018-11-06. "42 (NW) Brigade". 2008-02-09. Retrieved 2018-10-01. "1 RIFLES". 2007-10-05. Retrieved 2018-10-01. "51 (Scottish) Brigade". Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 21 September 2018. "7 RIFLES". 2008-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-01.
Or better yet, I show the edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2007_British_Army_order_of_battle&action=history . All I see are archives to the British Army's website in 2007, a website clearly not officially used anymore. That proves that there were these units in the British Army in and around 2007. It does not prove 1) that they were significantly created or merged (as you argue) in 2007 or 2) that they were a result of defence reviews or changes made in 2007 or a few years before (few as not in more than 5).
For example, the source "Divisions and Brigades". It just lists the brigades and sub-units at that archive page. How do we know they were merged and/or created in 2007? Why was that so? (As in, what Defence Review or British Army plan?) Were the majority or units merged or created then? How even then does it prove that 2007 is a significant year to warrant an article for it?
Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I know they were merged because regiments like the rifles, yorkshire, duke of lancaster's and a few others were created in 2007, also I have 4 different webpages for 2007 structures, say compared to 2002 when they were re-organized
Me ( talk) 23:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as
10th Regiment Royal Artillery, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our
policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read
Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the
Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
IWI (
chat)
17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
IWI (
chat)
20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Since I'm unblocked now, can someone please tell me what I'm doing wrong? I'm not going to edit anything (text wise) till I know, because I have a lot of stuff to add and I don't want to be banned again.. J-Man11 ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this is from the now defunct gamer/ORBAT website orbat.com, who were owned by General Data LLC, as was Tiger Lily Publications. They had the same publisher and editor, and Tiger Lily Publications was essentially a "vanity" publisher (per WP:SPS) of ORBATs associated with the other two entities. So anything from them isn't going to be considered to be reliably published. Don't use anything linked to orbat.com, General Data LLC, or Tiger Lily Publications. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
It sucks that you have to do all this work just to add like 20 words that, more than likely, no one will view.. J-Man11 ( talk) 12:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, J-Man11. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on British Army Structure in 1914 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 ( talk) 21:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 8 Regiment RCT 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, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I am not sure why you have created 1st Battalion Scots Guards. This is actually the same military unit as Scots Guards as the regiment only has one battalion and we do not allow competing articles on the same subject. Also it was not properly sourced as required by WP:CITE and WP:RS and it was almost entirely in list form contrary to WP:PROSE. Please can I again, respectfully, ask you to start reading Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 09:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I have taken the trouble to re-write the article, which you had posted in list form, as prose (see WP:PROSE). Once it was rewritten it was much easier for the reader to follow the story (which is why we prefer prose). It was then quite apparent to me that your list was inaccurate. During that period British Army units returned to the UK, typically every three years, and your list did not include at least one of those tours in the UK. Once the article was in prose that omission was much more obvious. Please can you study and try and write in prose. Thanks. Dormskirk ( talk) 10:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no reliable evidence that I've seen saying the formation will be called that. House of Commons sources refer to the 'first Strike Brigade' which does not mean the Army will form a formation known as the '1st Strike Brigade'. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone named meat something keeps removing the facebook references that are from the government facebook.. I was told I can use it as long as it is official.. WTF? J-Man11 ( talk) 16:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you uploaded File:Albanian Land Force Structure.png. Thank you for contributing OrBat graphics. However yoru graphic contains some errors:
Please update/correct the graphic or I will remove it from the article as it contains too many errors. Best regards, noclador ( talk) 22:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, J-Man11!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
CoolSkittle (
talk)
00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Hi - I see that you have added a series of articles to wikipedia that are not properly cited: 3 Regiment RLC, 8 Artillery Support Regiment RLC and 12 Regiment RLC. One of these articles has just one citation (8 Artillery Support Regiment RLC) and another uses wikipedia as a source (12 Regiment RLC). As previously mentioned to you wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Dormskirk ( talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that this edit introduced a major sourcing error into 5th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). You stated the data came from the (excellent) BAOR 1989 document.
But 5th Airborne Brigade as it was in 1989 was neither in BAOR in Germany, nor committed to Germany in wartime; it was actually the only major formation allocated for home defence, and based in the UK (Beevor 1989). So the source you added *COULD NOT* contain the data you said it had, and you evidently did not check before copying the data wholesale from Noclador's previously draft page, Structure of the British Army in 1989. Just because the BAOR document is listed at the bottom of that page does not mean that everything is sourced from that document. Noclador actually built most of the data from Andy Johnson's original "NATO 1989 order of battle", widely accessible from Scribd or microarmormayhem, now about v.8.
This again emphasizes your remaining very careless attitude to sources; you would have only had to open the linked BAOR 1989 document and done a search for 5th Airborne Brigade to find that the data was not there. The problem at that page has been fixed now accidentally by BlueD954's rather unwarranted continual rollbacks of your edits, but the central problem remains: you're introducing errors in sourcing here, there, and everywhere.
You're not really committed to WP:Verifiability; you're still treating this as (a bit more than, after constant pestering) your fan pages.
I am not quite decided whether it is necessary to block you, or you can be tutored further. Peacemaker67, your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
all work to be done in draft space or sandbox only. J-Man is not to move a single page to main space. He is to request a move from one of us or a new page reviewer. If he moves a page to main space, it's an automatic block (30 days?). As for main space edits, he must propose them on the talk page. Any edits to an article in main space on his own... same thing, automatic block. Sounds harsh, but it's not as bad as being blocked right now. This way, he can continue to build, contribute and learn, without disrupting the project. Cant learn much if he's blocked right now and where will he be when the block ends in a month? No better off. I think this could work..And if there was a designated mentor, that would help too. I think J-man really does want to contribute, its just taking him longer than most to catch on. This is JMHO, would still like to hear what Hawkeye has to say. Cheers - wolf 11:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Endorsed. J-Man11, we're closely monitoring your edits (though we would much prefer not to have to). You are not to move any article from draftspace or your sandbox, or create articles in article space until further notice. I will block you for a month plus if you don't comply with these restrictions. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I've made a few drafts if you guys wouldn't mind looking at them to help me out..:
I need to find more info on the signal group, but the others I had a good amount on.. J-Man11 ( talk) 22:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought you said that I couldn't create pages unless they were drafts for a while..? J-Man11 ( talk) 17:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
When setting a title of an article, lets say the "United States of America" if I do the [[ thing, how would I re-direct it? In a sense? If I would type in say "The United States of America". J-Man11 ( talk) 21:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)