User talk:Fdewaele

Hi, a quick google (I didn't go past the first page) could not find anything to support your edit where you've inserted a passage that Bill Nelson is the most vulnerable Democratic senator. Would you please support this assertion with a link on the page? Thanks Flawiki 00:34, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste content from news reports. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Fdewaele,

first, let me introduce myself. My name is Frank Schulenburg, I come from Germany and have been contributing to the German Wikipedia since February 2005. My special field of interest is early modern history, especially economic and world history. You'll find more information on my german userpage.

I'm currently working on a project at the french wikipedia, which I've started a few days ago. You can find it at Wikipédia:Projet/Histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire. The main goal of this project is the collaboration between the different Wikipedias on the topic of the French Consulate and First French Empire (1799–1815).

I would like to invite you to contribute or just to take a look at it. If you want to take part in this project, please put your name in the list of participants.

Greetings from Goettingen to Ninove, --Frank Schulenburg 10:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had no way whatsoever of knowing that you were working on the article. It was in the main article space, it was a single sentence...criterion A1. Sorry about the inconvenience. Looks great now. - Lucky 6.9 18:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Warning taken.  :) Thanks for the chuckle. - Lucky 6.9 18:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred :) [ I'm assuming you are the person I think you are, given your name, your country, your qualifications - basically everything on your user page ;) ] --TheParanoidOne 21:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small world, indeed. You made a comment on the talk page of a user who is on my watchlist. I was pretty confident that it was you, so I just thought I'd say Hi :) --TheParanoidOne 22:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Lucky 6.9? BTW does this mean I now am on your watch list as well? :D --fdewaele 23:20 24 November 2005 (CET)

Yes, and yes. ;) --TheParanoidOne 23:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have posted the following recently in the talk page of Zapatero:

"You two guys are becoming EQUALLY ANNOYING. You two both made one fine mess out of this once great article. The blame goes to both sides. - fdewaele 25 November 2005, 15:30 CET"

I am interested in your honest opinion about when the article was great and why. (I promise I ask this out of curiosity not because I am going to use it with any purpose, sincerely) Zapatancas 09:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The time before all the badgering between you and Squeak started. yes, it could be improved - which article couldn't? - but the discussion about what "English" to use was surreal and has now degraded to a vendetta between you two... fdewaele, 28 November 2005 11:55 CET

As his name indicates, van Eyck was probably originary from the medieval town of Eyck, i.e. Maaseik. So it is debatable whether he was "Flemish". Karl Stas 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly doesn't make him Dutch either. But in nowadays geographical and territorial descriptions, he would be a Fleming, as Fleming is used for all Dutch speaking inhabitants of Belgium. Couple this to the fact he spend most of his working time in the County of Flanders justifies calling him a Fleming. -- fdewaele 12:40 29 December 2005 (CET)

Not wholly unjustified, but still debatable. Current geographical designations are not very relevant for a painter who lived in the 15th century. "Netherlandish" seems a good compromise, also because art historians use the term "early Netherlandish painting" to describe the "Vlaamse Primitieven". - Karl Stas 18:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add copyvio content to this article, especially when I've just removed it. If you'd like to re-create this article with the information it used to have, please contact User:Andman8 as he told me that he intends to do precisely that and could probably use the help. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

completely rewording an article - as I did - is NOT a copyright violation. If you follow your logic, all newspapers, etc would be copyright violations because they cover the same content and facts. It's not because it partly has the same facts, that it's an infringement of copyright. I wonder what'd you do with history books (sarcasm) -- fdewaele.

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 13:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool UserBox Template. One of your Userboxes have been deleted. I am pasting the Code back onto the page but yours is a little special--E-Bod 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I made some changes to the British Grand Fleet order of battle, but as I am not sure about them (only following logic there) and as you seem to have worked quite a bit on the article, could you please confirm ? Thanks, and best regards. Tovarich1917 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation and the information you provided on my query are most useful. I'll rewrite the photo caption accordingly; hopefully we'll eventually identify the gentleman at her side in the archival photograph.

Meanwhile, I'm glad to have had the opportunity to learn of Queen Elisabeth. I'll be sure to mention her in my writing about Belgium under Nazi occupation, and at my first opportunity shall expand this article noting her intercession with Hitler (!) on behalf of Belgian Jewry. -- Thanks so much, Deborahjay 05:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,

ik heb momenteel het initiatief genomen voor het nieuwe WikiProject Belgium, neem eens een kijkje en als je geïnteresseerd bent aarzel dan niet om je bij de deelnemers te zetten!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edits as 'vandalism'. Massive, unexplained text removal by anonymous editors are usually either a mistake or a deliberate act of vandalism, and I reverted this one as such, albeit without digging any deeper into the actual contents. I clearly indicated my action in the edit summary, so your rude comment in your edit summary was uncalled for. If you disagree with my actions as an admin you are welcome to question them, but you will not gain much support here by referring to my actions as 'vandalism'. Owen× ☎ 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding such a large passage for a totally unknown write in candidate is either spamming or vandalism of the article. Plus it was added at a place in the article where adding it is very suspicious. I saw this large ad on to the article and suspected it to be as such, if I have offended you with this I'm sorry but you should have checked the content of what you added back... -- fdewaele, 1 November 2006, 23:00

Hello fdewaele! I have been working on the article on Q. Tullius Cicero. I am worried about the problem you mentioned on the discussion page 3.1.07: part of the article does not show. Would you kindly ask somebody to help us with this weird thing? I am just a novice in the "business", and would probably just get lost and confused going from one help page to another. By the way, thank you for rearranging the article to nice subcategories! It looks far better that way! Greetings from Finland!Tellervo 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes this would be alright in my opinion, if english historiography use name Eylau (which is wrong). Try to see translation of the text on Deutsch Wikipedia (Schlacht bei Preußisch Eylau). It's not my personal idea I just want to help you a little bit becouse your text is translated in several languages (english is common language)and those translations don't have redirect: Battle of Preussisch Eylau (in italian for example). So... little mistake makes many huge mistakes on many wikipedias... Unfortunetly there is a second reason why your Article should be changed, try to see articles on english wiki 1. - Ilawa (Deutsch Eylau) and 2. - Bagrationowsk (Preussich Eylau). As I understand name Eylau is refering to both this towns? as well as your Battle of Eylau? If I were you (but I'm not) I would copy the article Battle of Eylau to Redirect Battle of Preussich Eylau and create redirect: Battle of Eylau. Belive me I have read a lot of books from many sources about this battles and one very big compendium 93 pages in polish called "Bitwa pod Pruską Iławą" (Bitwa pod Preussisch Eylau)writen by Tomasz Rogacki ISBN 83-11-09807-7, en: Battle of Preussich Eylau. It uses many Sources from all involved and not involved nations:

• • Bogdanovic M.J., Istoria carstvowanija Imperatora Aleksandra I i Rossiii w ego vremenji, S. Petersburg 1869.
  • Bourdeau E., Campagnes modernes, t. 2, Paris 1916.
  • Camon J., Napoleoński system prowadzenia wojny, Warszawa 1926.
  • Campagne des armes francaises en Prusie, en Saxe, en Polotne sous commendament de S.M. l’Empereur et roi 1806 – 1807.
  • Coignet J.R., Von Marengo bis Waterloo, Stuttgart 1910.
  • Correspodance de Napoleon I.
  • Dumas M., Precis des evenements militaries ou essays historiques sur les campagne de 1799 a 1815, Paris 1826.
  • Foucart P., Campagne de Pologne. Novembre – decembre 1806. Janvier 1807, t. 2, Paris 1882.
  • Geschichte des Krieges von Preussen und Russlands gegen Frankreich in den Jahren 1806 und 1807, Berlin 1835
  • Goltz C., Von Jena bis Pr. Eylau, Berlin 1907.
  • Grenier P., Etude sur 1807, Paris 1907.
  • Herbst S., Potrzeba Historii – Manewr Olsztyn – Jonkowo, Warszawa 1978.
  • Hildebrandt, Die Schlacht bei Pr. Eylau am 7 und 8 Februar 1807.
  • Hopfner E., Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1855.
  • Jany C., Geschichte der Koniglich – Preussischen Arme bis zum Jahre 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1927.
  • Jomini H., Zarys sztuki wojennej, Warszawa 1966.
  • Kircheisen F., Napoleon. Die Memoiren seinen Lebens.
  • Kukiel M., Wojny napoleońskie, Warszawa1927.
  • Lettow – Vorbeck P., Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1896.
  • Marbot J.B., Memoires du gen. Bon de Marbot. Genes – Austerlitz – Eylau, t. I, Paris 1891.
  • Michajłowski – Danilevski, Opisanije wtoroj wojny Impieratora Aleksandra I s Napoleonom w 1806 i 1807 godu, S. Petersburg 1846.
  • Napoleon et l’Empire Empire. 1 – 2, Paris 1969.
  • Napoleon, Meine ersten Siege, b.r.w.
  • Operations du III – eme Corps 1806/1807.
  • Pelet, Memorial du depot generale de la guerre, t. 8.
  • Savary J.A.M., Memoiren des Herzogs von Rovigo.
  • Schachtmayer F., Schlacht bei Preussisch Eylau und Gefecht bei Waltersdorf, Berlin 1857.
  • Schalchtfelder in Ostpreussen, b.r.w.
  • Thiers L.A., Historia Konsulatu i Cesarstwa, t. 4, Warszawa 1850.
  • Tiry J., Eylau – Friedland – Tillsit, Paris 1967.

I can only mention that I have created the article Battle of Pruska Iława in Polish and i have used from your article one information that marshal Ney said after battle "What a masacre! And for no outcome." You can use my images to make your article better, they are in public domain and I have exported them on Commons server (copy names of images on polish wiki and find them on commons). You should find more informations about this battle. It is one of very big importance. After this battle both armies were almost destroyed and soldiers faith in victory on both sides have disapired... This was the only reason why Napoleon was seeking on spring final victory to persuade Russia to peace table. After this Battle Napoleons soldiers were screaming Viva le Paix(Long live the Peace) instead of Viva l'Emperour(Long Live Imperor) as they usuall were doing. You must understand that every commander tried to find safe quaters for winter. In the time of Napoleonic Wars to lead an army in the middle of winter in -15 Degress was like Suicide that's why Benigsen has made huge strategical mistake trying to engage Napoleon in this time. If he would wait till spring when he was joined by reinforcments he would have some chances to win Battle of Friedland instead of this he has lost half of his men at Preussich Eylau. Yours Greatfully Azglahal 18:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC) CYA.[reply]

Thanks for tracking down those sources, this is a very interesting subject and needs expansion. Homefill 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ninove church 2.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Ninove church 2.JPG. The copy called Image:Ninove church 2.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I noticed you change the link on USS Nashville (LPD-13), and realised there seems to be far more sources calling it INS Jalashwa (1920 G-hits) than INS Jalashva (741 G-hits). Sure, Google isn't the end-all for stats, but this seems odd. Where is the "official word" coming from regarding its proper name? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded for your reverts on the Steven Spielberg article in the battle against vandals who would destroy the wikipedia. LordHarris (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of the changes you made to the article Nobility of the First French Empire.

Louis-Alexandre Berthier is credited by the given source as being Prince de Neuchâtel as a sovereign title and I think also as victory title given to him for the battle of Wagram.However I can see that the source is not clear and could be causing confusion between us. But please see his sovereign title above and the last line of the paragraph on his victory prince title "Gules a on pale or three chevrons sable, and a chief of prince of the Empire (Neufchâtel)." Please drop me a line on my talk page if you still think my analysis is wrong and we can take it to the talk page of the article for a longer discussion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you had been using that source because of some of the other edits you had made. But I now agree with you analysis, because I checked some other online sources one of which was this one. Unfortunately the Princes of Wagram article does not carry a valid source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article Prince de Wagram is even incorrect as it states that the title was created in 1808. Somehow, Napoleon new a year in advance that he'd fight at Wagram and that Berthier should be awarded that title... incorrect of course as the title was created in 1809. -- fdewaele, 11:51, 7 December 2007.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vlaanderenkiest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sometimes the IPs are actually correct! Please see my undo note, but it is true that any German or Hungarian troops which were not killed did indeed surrender or were taken prisoner.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"All killed and captured" is far too vague and simplistic. You need to specify in how much killed, wounded and captured. Besides some troops might have escaped indivually and then just went home. Some were captured by the Americans, others by the Czech, others by the Soviets. Exact figures are what is needed. -- fdewaele, 22 february 2008,11:46, CET.

Yes, I appreciate your passion for precision, but if any did escape, the number was not significant for the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Prague was way too far from the Western Allied lines for this number to have been significant, and it was completely surrounded. Czechs were not patting any Germans and Hungarians on the head either. I doubt that the Red Army was taking numbers down, in any case, I have never seen any, the numbers provided varying by hundreds of thousands since some sources include all operations in Czechoslovakia. I will be working on the Eastern Front articles, so I will keep a lookout for the sources, and will update when these become available.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued a vandalism warning to User:169.139.251.241 in response to his "massive deletion of information" from the Benjamin Pierce article which you later reverted. --TommyBoy (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested in becoming involved with any and all improvements to pages related to Belgium. I have requested info about Project Belgium from MANY sources and editors. To date, I have not received any replys. I am having a wonderful time at WIkipedia. But...I need a project to provide focus. Bedankdt --Buster7 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is a blank section Social War in the article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume mainly because EraNavigator - who has done a terrific job on the article - hasn't written the section yet but felt he should already put the structure in place. When I have some time later tonight (and have my sources at hand) I'll start one encompassing Fregellae, the Social War and the aftermath of the civil war between Marius and Sulla. These events mark the end of the Roman military confederation as the citizenship was extended to the whole of Italia and the Italian allies becamse fully incorporated in to the Roman republic. -- fdewaele, 23 June 2008, 10:35.

Hi. I confirm your first sentence above. You are doing a good job. But your text needs citations: every statement must be referenced. Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your corrections in the article List of censors. --Tomaxer (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Sarah Palin. Thank you.

Please note that blogs are NOT acceptable sources. Thank you! ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You added an interesting statement - The king of the Cimbri was indignant at this impudence and had Scaurus executed by having him burned alive in a wicker cage. Can you give me the source for your added statement to support my further research on the subject. Thanks.Dumbasser (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main source of Scaurus is Livy: Ab Urbe Condita liber LXVII Periocha:

M. Aurelius Scaurus, legatus consulis, a Cimbris fuso exercitu captus est, et cum in consilium ab his aduocatus deterreret eos ne Alpes transirent Italiam petituri, eo quod diceret Romanos uinci non posse, a Boiorige, feroci iuuene, occisus est.

The fact that he was burned in a wicker cage is mainly conjecture but this was the attested means as a Germano-Celtic practice of burning prisoners alive in wicker cages and has been described by various ancient sources -- fdewaele, October 11, 2008, 15:20 CET.

Thanks for your prompt and detail information.Dumbasser (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I applaud your contributions to Roman military confederation. But can we have in-line references please, as in the rest of the article (which I wrote)? You must annotate your source for every statement you make in the article. If you fail to add references, I shall be obliged to rewrite your section. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know your references for this text Thanks David0811 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David0811 (talk • contribs)

Translation from the French wikipedia page. - fdewaele

Hello,
I've completed the proofreading and revision of the article above, for which you made a contribution. Should you remain interested in the content of the article, please check it out and tell me on its talk page. Thanks, and regards.
--Campelli (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once Senator Max Cleland is confirmed by the Senate, go ahead and add his name to the list of secretaries, and add his new position to his biography. I added General Nicholson's biography to Wikipedia recently, as part of a long effort to put up biographies for every US commission and agency. This effort is easier than some, because the official biographies on US government web sites have most of the information needed, including photos. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a curious fact about the ABMC, from the official website:

The authorizing legislation for the American Battle Monuments Commission (36 U.S.C., Chapter 21) specifies that the president will appoint 11 members to the commission and an officer of the regular Army to serve as the secretary. President George W. Bush appointed BG (Ret) Nicholson to serve as secretary in January 2005. There currently are no appointed commissioners. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, more questions here regarding American Battle Monuments Commission. You said:

"On May 21, 2008 President Obama tapped former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland to serve as the next Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission."

1) I didn't know that Obama was president in 2008?

2) Do you have a reference for that?

3) Oh, do you think "selected" or "chose" would be better than "tapped"? Should we use slang in an encyclopedia if we can avoid it?

Thanks > Best O Fortuna (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected it, the 2008 was a typo. Have added a reference: the WH press release announcing the nomination. -- fdewaele, 10 June 2009, 11:27 CET.

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Freddy Willockx. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Dutch wiki - fdewaele, 17 July 2009, 10:08 CET

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you tagged the article Titus Statilius Taurus as containing "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations" without leaving any remarks on the talk page as to what you meant. Could you take a look at the article in its current state to see whether your concerns have been addressed? If not, could you explain where you think the problems lie? Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not I, but user Niaz tagged it. -- fdewaele, 3 January 2010, 10:10

Hi Fdewaele, I just came across one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2004 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 23:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and clean up on the Petersburgh and Appomattox section. Are you able to review the whole article for GA status? {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hugo von Kirchbach, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.gistek.net/cdv.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False positive. I marked it as such at WP:SCV.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't actually vandalism by me as I reverted to a previous change to fix the formatting that picked up someone else's "vandalism". But thanks for accusing me! Goap23 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it really looked like attempted vandalism to me, my apologies -- fdewaele, 5 May 2011, 21:12.

The article John J. Yeosock has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Michig (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your ongoing work behind the scenes to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism and typos. It's much appreciated! EyeSerenetalk 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Patty Shwartz--It would be great if you could also improve the related article List of laws of Jersey.

Jipinghe (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Fdewaele! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hi! Sorry to be a pain, but I removed the images you added to that list because they are Crown Copyright, and so using them there is against the non-free content policy. I don't much like it myself, but we can only use free images in most contexts (one exception is illustrating deceased persons in their biographical article if no free image of them is available, which is why they're used in the officers' articles but not the list). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The article David Svoboda has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cloudz679 15:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Fdewaele, and thanks for your contributions. A couple general editing notes if you don't mind: When you make a change to an article, please make a habit of providing an edit summary. Doing so helps your colleagues here understand the intention of your edit. Also it will also be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This will keep the edit history of the page less cluttered. Dank u wel, Eric ^talk 01:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying and pasting its content into Belgian Army. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes.

Unfortunately, we will have to temporarily delete the new article you created under speedy deletion criterion G6, so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. To avoid this problem in the future, please use the "Move" tab at the top of articles in order to re-title them.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Beagel (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit, anyway it seem hard to understand the sense of the reorganization [1]. Happy New Year! --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns, however, you reverted my edits without contributing to the talk page, and then asked me to discuss things. If you want a discussion, please contribute to talk. The articles on West Wing characters violate the policy on in-universe; they are written as if these characters exist on their own. These characters do not exist and lengthy articles about their fictional doings are not appropriate. Kindly read the article "What Wikipedia is not" to learn about the use of indiscriminate information and the in-universe principle. thanks.Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get of your soapbox. You're acting very hypocritical: without debate YOU delete content, and then you go on accusing me of doing things without debate. I merely restored the ex ante situation in order to be able to have a debate without losing content. Besides nothing you claim is actually listed on "What Wikipedia is not". You are pushing a personal agenda. So please first have an open discussion on what should remain and what is to be deleted before destroying Wikipedia content. -- fdewaele, 31 January 2013.

Calm down, if you please. First, may I refer you to the pillar of Wikipedia: Assume good faith. I have no soapbox or agenda, and I am not destroying content - I am improving the articles by editing the in-universe style. Also, allow me to quote directly from "What Wikipedia is not": 1. "there is an important distinction what can be done and what should be done," 2. "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details," 3. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and 4. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." If you would like to contribute to a rational discussion on the merits of keeping this in-universe style, please do so on an article's talk page.Catherinejarvis (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very vague guidelines which don't actually state that in-universe articles are out of bounds for Wikipedia. You are merely interpreting it that way (=POV). Please stop your crusade for now and have a rational discussion BEFORE deleting. Discuss such things first before you start deleting, and we'll all get along better. -- fdewaele.

The anonymous editor who was vandalizing Rebecca Hall is now User:VALID REALITY and is ranting on talk pages that she is not American. Just for your information. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. What vandalizing? What the heck are you talking about? What ranting on what talk pages? I've moved on from your Hall rants. Stop trying to sell your actress to me or anyone else. She is not American in any way and neither are you. You need to stop ranting to others who state facts on Wikipedia and move on. --VALID REALITY (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that editor who keeps removing Bill Haydon from the article. I've reverted them at least twice on this point. I tried getting the article protected but the powers-that-be would only add "pending changes" protection. I suspect I'll be requesting semi-protection sooner rather than later. - Fantr (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I am not a vandal! It is completely unnecessary to reveal the name of the upper class character who is the mole in John Le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. By revealing the name you spoil the book, TV series, and film for anyone who hasn't read it yet. I, for one, was quarter way through the book when I happened to glance upon your reference. By removing the name, all I'm trying to do is prevent other people from having the book, TV series and film spoiled for them. Yours faithfully, Julian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian1961 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why you have deleted Larrey He was a member off Napoleons staff and a pretty doctor. He helped hundreds of men bewaring from dying.

Look at larrey at wiki.fr Napoleon said he was the bravest of the braves!He wrote about the berizina bridges and crossed them double times'!! Hello __79.206.127.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute Larrey's importance - after all he is the father of modern battlefield medicine - but that was merely an unsourced anecdote written in bad English, which has no real place in an article of the battle itself. It's merely "la petite histoire". -- fdewaele, 28 August 2013.

Hi, can you please take a look on the talke site of the article? I wrote a message after you did undo my changes. Would be nice, if you answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.96.35 (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure why you reversed an edit made by 105.227.43.240 regarding new cardinals to be created on 22 February 2014. I left your edit alone, but I did some googling and did find a press release by the National Catholic Register confirming that new appointments will be made on that date (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/consistory-for-creation-of-new-cardinals-confirmed-for-february). Would the addition of the reference made here by enough? Juve2000 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1. It was clearly unsourced, 2. it stated that "the next Cardinals will be created on 22 February 2013", which was suspicious and 3. it's an article about the currently living cardinals and not about future consistories. -- fdewaele, 7 November 2013.

I am inferring you would prefer NOT to have that edit re-instated, even if the reference (above) were added and the date was corrected. I assume the original edit was made to inform readers that there would be significant additions to the article on 22 February 2014. I do not wish to create an edit war, so I will leave it alone.Juve2000 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your intentions were good (although perhaps impulsive). Phil Leeds was not in the Green Mile. If you think he was, please provide a source. The Percy character was never shown as "old", and Leeds was dead when the film was made. Thanks. 107.15.207.152 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Lowther, 8th Earl of Lonsdale 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/Hugh Lowther, 8th Earl of Lonsdale until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate these articles for me , please ? I need somebody to do that. You can do it for me.

Articles to translate

• fr:Fédération royale néerlandaise des échecs (Royal Dutch Chess Fdederation)

Thanks. Bye bye. Howard Weinstein (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fdewaele.

I saw your contribution to the Tiger class cruiser Talk page. Entirely agree with you. However, I've posted some material on the Tiger class Talk page myself that should explain the tactical rationale for those ships. A topic that the anonymous editor seems to have no knowledge of. Perhaps it will help future editors to reconstruct that article. I don't feel willing to do that myself, esp since there is so much wrong with it that it would perhaps be better to scrap it entirely and start over on a clean sheet. George.Hutchinson (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor reported to 3RR. Murry1975 (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved the Polish section, not deleted it. It is in the wrong place and makes the Poles look bad. You have to get to the end of the section, before you get to the punch line. :) Wallie (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, my main source for these articles is the British Official History, the 1914 volumes of which were published in the 1920s so I fear you've got a lot of Anglicised and obsolete spellings to correct. Apologies.Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're mostly not Anglicised names but either the French names of those Flemish towns or the old obsolete spelling of the name. I'll do my best to clean-up as much as possible -- fdewaele, 21:32 (CET), 9 August 2014

Since you've been systematically reverting the edits of Brandenbruso, you really ought to leave the editor a message explaining why you disapprove of the changes. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help putting this fire out. I'm glad someone had spotted this behavior previously. Nobody can get away with arbitrarily switching infobox images on FAs without discussion... BusterD (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fdewaele. Luc De Vos, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 05:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luc De Vos, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Mia", a song by Belgian musician Luc De Vos which was voted "best song ever" three years in a row on Studio Brussel, gave its name to the MIAs, the Belgian Music Industry Awards? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luc De Vos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you've blanked the redirect Arthur Wellesley, Marquess of Douro, apparently intending to remove the redirect. Please be noted that blanking a page is not tantamount to a deletion. I have reverted your blanking for now. If you wish to delete the redirect, please take it to WP:RFD. If you have a question or comment, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. KJ ^Discuss? 16:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if the text's going to take up that much space anyway, what do you think of making the images substantially larger, but in two rows? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard p. 92: 'News of this palace coup quickly reached London, where the queen...fled to sanctuary with her younger son, RIchard Duke of York.'

Baldwin p. 99: 'Richard, Duke of York, who was in sanctuary with his mother'.

Hicks p. 115: 'The queen took sanctuary at Westminster with Dorset and her youngest son Richard Duke of York.'

It's very clear that York was not with his brother at the time their father died, and therefore cannot have been intercepted at Stony Stratford. The version you have put forward is therefore factually inaccurate. I strongly recommend reverting to the version I drafted. If you are unhappy with the phrasing, by all means change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.183.89 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this edit. There is a nifty set of templates to help out in situations where there is an article in another language on Wikipeida see {{ill}} and the other similar templates. In this case:

{{ill|vertical-align=sup|de|Karl Friedrich Franciscus von Steinmetz |Karl Friedrich Franciscus von Steinmetz |Steinmetz}}

• Steinmetz

When a en Wikipedia article is created the link will turn blue and the de will disappear. I will add it to the artilce. If the link is wrong in that article presumably it is also wrong in Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign. If it is please either let me know or fix it yourself. -- PBS (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have created a stub Karl Friedrich Franciscus von Steinmetz, so no need for the template. -- PBS (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article at the OoB is also wrong. They have similar names and are closely related to one and other, so confusion can easily happen, but GFM Steinmetz only became a general decades later, and reached his peak in the wars of 1866 and 1870. -- fdewaele, 17 June 2015, 19:07

Re: this edit: I love the photo but just asking for future reference - In your edit summary you said "as many times before...", so I was wondering if the painting/photo/infobox issue has been discussed before on the Henry Clay talk page or if it's maybe in the Infobox guidelines? (By the way, two of my favorite Infobox photos are Albert Gallatin & Deford Bailey.) Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, every so often there comes a (mostly anonymous) editor who changes the picture in the infobox of articles regarding persons to a painting. Mostly happens to articles about politicians. Out of the many previous occasions that it happened, a consensus has arisen that whenever available in an infobox a photo of the person should be used in stead of a painting, which often are somewhat "romanticized". Paintings then should/could appear as illustration within the article itself but not in the box. A painting is only used in the box when no photo or daguerreotype is available or exists (for instance because the photographical techniques didn't exist yet). -- fdewaele, 22 August 2015, 14:25 CET.

Is this in the guidelines or maybe on some policy page? I'm asking in case I come across another page with a similar situation, I can point to a specific discussion or consensus. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to disagree, but there is nothing automatic in the matter. If the person who is receiving the honour, does not in the coming months present patent letters with his or her coat of arms and does not pay the required duty, the honour is not finalized, not signed by the king and the minister, and not effective. The date given to the honour will not be 10th of july 2016 but the future date (probably next year) when the formalities will all have been completed. Therefore, give already now the name of 'baron' or 'baroness' is premature before this is a fact, and Wikipedia is I think, an encyclopedia, aiming at exactitude. Best regards, Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Jeff Sessions into Ronald Reagan judicial appointment controversies). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the link in your signature has a typo and doesn't link to your user/talk page. Thought you might want to know. agtx 18:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you performed a cut and paste move of Michel Government to Michel I Government. Please do not do this, as it splits the page history, which is required for attribution. I have requested a history merge be done by an administrator to fix the history. In future, use a technical move request if you are unable to move a page. Danski454 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fdewaele,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Silvestercyclocross! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wanted to thank you for your diligence in fighting vandalism; I was patrolling recent changes and saw you had already reverted some vandalism I found. I noticed you didn't add a warning to the user in question User_talk:82.41.15.238 so I went and did that.

A suggestion, if you didn't already know this, is that you can use the gadget Twinkle to easily add warnings. Enabling this gadget is easy (just click Preferences -> Gadgets -> Browsing -> check Twinkle -> Save).

The warning system is important to catch repeat offenders and make sure they get blocked if they vandalize after receiving a final Level 4 warning. Another benefit of Twinkle is that it reverts much faster than using the default Undo feature! Merlin^sorca 00:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jean-Pierre Van Rossem; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SSSB (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend you starting signing using ~~~~, as it is standard to use UTC when you sign a post to avoid confusion with different time zones as not everyone will be familiar with the time zone abbreviations. SSSB (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB, perhaps you can take a look at the discussion at the talk place of the article about Jean-Pierre Van Rossem and try to mediate because neither party is willing to budge on their stance. Plus it is a bit difficult trying to argue with an anonymous user who keeps changing IP adress. --- fdewaele, 5 May 2019, 16:08 CET.

hello, can you explain to me , way do you think the previous version is better then my much more detailed version. I think it's important for the viewers to understand that the figure 30-33 thousand soviet soldiers killed in the battle, is only an estimation , because both hastings and beevor don't say on what sources they based their claimes. Alexi Isaev, on the other hand, wrote a detailed research on the battle, and his casaulties figures are well based on data from soviet archival sources. איש שלום (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is badly written and full of linguistic mistakes, and because the article in question is about the battle of Seelow heights and not about other parts of the front. Casualty figures about that are not relevant to the article in question so your edit doesn’t add anything relevant to what in the previous version wasn’t already mentioned/included. -– fdewaele, 25 July 2019, 22:33 CET

If you read the entry, you will see that it deals not only in the battle in the sector of seelow heights, but in the whole defensive battle of the German 9A (16-19.4.45). The "battle of seelow heights" is a code name, because the heights controled the whole arae were the battle took place. if you look at the table of the strength of the opposing forces in the entry introduction, you'll see it refers to the entire force of the soviet 1BF and the German 9A. That's why i think the same role should apply to the casaulties of the opposing forces during the battle. As I say before, Isaev figure of 20,000 soviet casaulties, refers only to the casaulties of 2 soviet armys (out of 11 armys of the 1BF) that fought in the Seelow sector, and that's why this data is misleading for the readers. If you think my English is not good enough, you can rephrase it in your own words, but please don't undid my revision completly. I still think my version is much better than the original. איש שלום (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

It might have been one of countless edits that you made, but I wanted to thank you for reinstating the content of the Marc Dutroux article after large parts of it had been "deleted" by an IP address. Really I wanted to thank you so much for it. Thank you.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 02:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hans Van Laethem 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/Hans Van Laethem 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. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

Please leave warnings for users when you revert them as you did here. They may or may not see it, but other editors who post on their talk page will notice that they've already been reverted, and why. If it's necessary to report them to AIV, your warning will also be one step closer to the expected level-4 warning. Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

The article Annelies Törös has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:NMODEL or any other applicable notability criterion.

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. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the war in Ukraine

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick- D and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on World War I

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Awarded for your continuous efforts in protecting articles from vandalism. Awarded by Cdjp1 on 25 August 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on British conscription and German warship raiders

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Canadian junior officers in World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on a World War II summit and the American space program

Hi. There are some issues with that edit, but it does return a more consensus and neutral version of the article. Thanks. HernánCortés1518 (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't. It deleted the map of the war and it puts in a claim without any reference or source to back it up. -- user:fdewaele, 15 June 2022 21:10 CET.

I'm aware of the version's problems, however, the removal of the map is entirely justified, as the map carries an unambiguous bias in favor of the controversial claim about the subject, and the map itself, unlike the other controversial non-neitral contribution, was not removed in time by another editor when it appeared there. HernánCortés1518 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still is the majority accepted version of the history of the Cmbrian War and was also the version that the Romans themselves aknowledged and suspected as the origin of the invaders. Anyway I still haven't seen a single source to backup the "controvery". As it stands it is more like original research or personal opinion.-- user:fdewaele, 16 June 2022 10:08 CET.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Falklands War

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 in men's road cycling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marco Haller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Meet some of the project coordinators

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

An article you created back in 2018, Patricia Ceysens, is not suitable 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. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

Hey, Fdewaele. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

Hello, Fdewaele. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Patricia Ceysens, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

Hello, Fdewaele. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Patricia Ceysens".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

Snickers2686 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Fdewaele! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

I have seen that you have deleted my contributions for practically no reason, in the article on the Mexican-American war I put 2 sources without deleting the one that was already there, there was practically no reason why to do so.

And in the article about the battle of the Alamo, the article itself attests that Santa Anna gave an official figure, the 400-600 Texans was an estimate that was made some time later, remember that there were no survivors to attest to the facts. Damian Iturbide (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source you added for your edit (a non-official amateuristic Spanish language website with no sources of its own) is not a legitimate source for wikipedia. Sources need to be either official websites (government), or legitimate books, or official media articles. You have to properly ource such an edit, which you didn't and thus your edit is reverted. -- fdewaele, 22 February 2024, 18:51 CET

I have a source taken from a link from the Mexican government which is contemporary with the battle, where the "Diary of the Government of the Mexican Republic" which is signed by Santa Anna, shows the number of Mexicans killed and wounded in the action, as well as the difficulties that the Mexicans faced, which gives the number of 60 dead and 250 wounded in the siege.

Does that seem like enough of a source to you?

Here you have the link: https://www.inehrm.gob.mx/en/inehrm/La_Batalla_Del_lamo

And the "Diary of the Goverment of the Mexican Republic" : Suplemento al Diario del Gobierno de la República Mexicana, Núm. 326, México, lunes 21 de marzo de 1836, tomo IV, Imprenta del Águila, dirigida por José Ximeno, calle de Medinas, núm. 6. Tomado de Hemeroteca Nacional Digital de México. Damian Iturbide (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four recent works

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian