User talk:Gsl

This user may have left Wikipedia. Gsl has not edited Wikipedia since February 27, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

John Simpson Kirkpatrick sources

Can you please cite your sources when editing on Wikipedia? It makes it easier for people like me who wish to proof your work. Start with John Simpson Kirkpatrick if you can. Thanks. MyNameIsNotBob 10:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright in various photos

I've found some images which you have uploaded over which I have some copyright concerns. Your claims about the copyright are based on a misunderstanding of British copyright law. You claim that photos taken prior to 1 June 1957 have a 50 year copyright term, which has been incorrect for nearly 10 years. Since the EU copyright extension all photos not in Crown copyright have a term of life of the author plus 70 years or 70 years for anonymous works. Crown copyright photos are under the old term, ie still 50 years from creation. The images are:

If you don't know the author of the photos, then the term of copyright is 70 years after creation, or 70 years from publication if published during that period. Please clarify matters if you can. David Newton 18:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All now deleted. Geoff/Gsl 10:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for work on William Mariner

Thanks much for helping out, straightening up any messes I caused. That was the first major move I'd done. Zora 02:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject British Army

I'm not sure whether your really busy at the moment but just thought I'd ask if you'd like to join the Wikipedia:Wikiproject British Army. I've just started it, so it needs alot of experienced hands to get it going.

Take care SoLando 21:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No probs.. I was kinda worried that you'd left Wikipedia for good when you stopped editing for quite a while. Its alright on the History of the British Army thing. I haven't had time myself, so I understand. "Real life" - its a pain, eh? :-D

Take care SoLando 16:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Artois

I would appreciate a source on the first battle, I am unaware of it and would like to read about it. Further, if you are going to revert the numbering on the disambiguation page, how about changing the naming of the articles as well, since they are now incorrectly linked. Im going to fix this and assume you have a source you can pass me that confirms your numbering, but in the future, think about the effects of frivolous reverting before you do it. If I cant find a source on the first battle and you dont send me one in the next week or so, I'll revert back - although I despise re-reverting. Usrnme h8er 07:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, I'll see if I can pick up a couple at the local library as I am quite interested in the topic. Do you think it might be worth mentioning this somehow on the "first" and "second" pages? To avoid confusion? Also, the First Battle of Artois page now needs quite a bit of work, although a copy of one of the other BoA pages with changed text should work fine. Usrnme h8er 11:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Munster Fusiliers

Could you not have waited till I was finished ?? Coming in when I was working caused me to loose a whole section. Osioni 22:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Reverting Lyrics!!

Stop reverting the lyrics on More than a Feeling!! Many articles on Wikipedia have song lyrics on them!!!Spawn Man 03:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that "MTAF" lyrics are still copyrighted, being released in 1976. Geoff/Gsl 04:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Geoff! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wars and Battles

Thank you for the comments! Since the idea of some manner of merger or scope expansion seems to have fairly strong support, I've tried my hand at a proposal here; I hope that merging in such a fashion will satisfy your concerns about fracturing discussions. Any further comments or criticisms are very welcome. Kirill Lokshin 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy

Please always use {{db|reason}} or one of the many reason-specific tags. When I see a delete tag without an immediately obvious reason, I remove the tag. -- RHaworth 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating battles

I'm sorry about our conflict over the Battle of Dogger Bank. When you first changed my edits back back, I couldn't understand your reasons for undoing what I had done (if I had replaced the 1915 battle with the 1781 battle, for instance, I would have understood) and your notes didn't make it clear.

I'm completely appalled by your suggestion that I was trying to pretend that other people's work was my own. I can't believe any Wikipedians do that. I was simply trying to clarify an ambiguity and share my love of naval history. My notes say moved, not wrote, so it should have been clear that I wasn't appropriating authorship or intending to insult anyone.

It took me some time to understand what (I think) your objection was. My lesson is that I should have used the move function, for which I can only apologize to you and others who had contributed to the page. I will try to be a better Wikipedian.

I hope, in return, that you will make your reasons for reverting things clearer as it has taken me some time to understand the basis of your objection -- which is why I reverted you back resulting in a silly edit war.

I have taken your suggestion of submitting a request to the administrators. Thank you for the suggestion. JimmyTheOne 21:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi Geoff! I've just noticed that "Image:KingsregimentWWI.jpg" (which I recently uploaded) is a duplicate of "Image:British infantry skirmish 1914.jpg", which you uploaded to the Commons in April. Doh! I'll go ahead and list my image for deletion. Just one thing, though: are the British infantry in question from the King's Regiment (Liverpool)? The caption at Firstworldwar.com states they are. Next time I'm going to carry out a thorough search of the Commons before uploading a pic!:-) Take care. SoLando (Talk) 02:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revealing which battalion those soldiers are believed to have been part of! I've been meaning to visit the Museum of Liverpool Life for a while now (haven't been for months), so will probably make a visit sometime next week (hopefully with a digital camera). With regard to the image title, that's only because I went with the ambiguous (at least in terms of specifics) WWI ;-) Your version is certainly more shaper and the contrast is (IMO) superior. I've just uploaded a modified version of "my" image to see which you'd prefer; the image doesn't appear to have been updated to the current revision, so just click on it to see the newer upload. I also agree on having both images in the page history on Commons. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 04:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll go ahead and upload two versions of the image (full size and 1024 width) to your image at the Commons. By the way, the title you suggest seems fine. The book Difficulties Be Damned (very informative, but could have done with some "personal" quotes from soldiers of the regiment) states that their first action came on 27 April in a counter-attack during the Battle of St. Julien, and again on 1 May. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Uhud

You reinstated an obsolete copyvio notice, imo. Please look at the article's talk page and history and explain why you disagree (in unlikely event you still do) before reverting. TIA FRS 20:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Battle of Uhud. Geoff/Gsl 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibu tt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in the article Battle of the Somme (1916)

Why did you reverted my edit in the article Battle of the Somme (1916)? Toya 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you write it? Geoff/Gsl 20:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the Hebrew Wikipedia it is written that shelling of artillery precede to this battle. Toya 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The first day of the battle was preceded by seven days of preliminary artillery bombardment in which the British fired over 1.5 million shells." is the first sentence of "The first day on the Somme" section.

Geoff/Gsl 04:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Geoff, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks (and this cowbell) as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome. Geoff/Gsl 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts and protecting articles

You have twice reverted my quite logical and clearly motivated name-change of use of poison gas in World War I without any motivation of your own. Please reply to my post at the talkpage instead of just auto-reverting without explaining why.

I would also encourage you to be a bit more open to changes to the article. When looking at the constant reverts that you're making of other users' edits, I get the feeling that you wish the article to be more static than is healthy on a wiki.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've very clearly pointed out to you where and how you can discuss the matter without simply reflex-reverting, yet you've chosen to be extremely uncivil by simply ignoring me. Please recosinder your editorial behavior.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. The article's all yours. Geoff/Gsl 09:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to work on your social skills here. Pouting is not merited in this situation.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SoLando's RFA

Hi Gsl/Geoff, thank you for voting in support of my RFA; the result was (28-0-0 ). I'm terrified of clicking on the wrong buttons (protect is right next to the history tab, damn it! ;-)). I hope that I am able to fulfil the expectations of an admin. If you see me mess up anywhere, have any concerns, please don't hesitate to tell me! Take care. SoLando (Talk) 10:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Battle images

Greetings, Gsl. Your battle images, such as Image:Battle of Goose Green.png, are fantastic. I just wanted to let you know how much these are appreciated here. Also, I wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Image recreation requests, if you didn't already. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the category Category:Wikipedia requested maps might be more appropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here. The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy ^e 04:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Löwenhardt

Thank you for pointing out the alternative article on Erich Löwenhardt. I am in favour of the merge. I suggest taking the information from the original article and replacing what I created, as it is more thorough. If you can keep the links and the photo, that'd be great also. Then perhaps some wikilinks can be added? I have also corrected other links to Löwenhardt on other wikipages, to correspond with mine.

--Geck0 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your vote

My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 01:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI

Hey! Just to let you know being on commons isnt a reason for speedy deletion. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Geoff/Gsl 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006

Project news

An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page.
The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain.
Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created.
An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway.
The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.

From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British 36th (Ulster) Division insignia

I noticed that there was a message on the talk page for the British 36th (Ulster) Division that indicates that the insignia (the hand) needs to be a mirror image (thumb on the left). Checking one of the external links in the article, I see that there is one image where this is the case, but all the rest are as you have it. Perhaps you would like to respond on the talk page. —ERcheck @ 23:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of military corps by name

Doesn't specify which military. Is it intended to be worldwide? - IstvanWolf 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gsl 02:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Somme

In Battle of the Somme (1916), you put in a table with casualties for several countries. Where did that data come from? Was it one of your books? Thanks. J. Finkelst e in 00:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately most of the figures come from the British official history (which I don't have). The 419,654 British Empire and 204,253 French total casualties come from there and are used in Sheffield's The Somme and Keegan's Face of Battle (though he says "nearly two hundred thousand French"). The killed & missing figures (95,675 British & 50.756 French) I got from Neillands' The Great War Generals which he got from the British official history. The German range (465,000 to 600,000 casualties) is from Sheffield. The source of the German killed & missing is explained in the article and came from Neillands.

As for the British Empire breakdown, the Australian official history and Prior & Wilson's The Somme have by-division casualty listings which can be used to get Aus, NZ and Canadian totals. The South African count was a guess based on 2000+ casualties at Delville Wood. The British & Irish figure is the difference or thereabouts. Gsl 07:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barossa Germans

The article out of which supposed copyright violation comes from is one of a number of similarly worded articles. It seems that the link you have given contains part of the article. Other links allow for free use of this material. eg. http://www.articlealley.com/article_62716_29.html I'm not sure of the wiki procedures on this matter, where to next? Ozdaren 07:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bennett

Was called Gordon Bennett. Adam 01:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tag for Image:Australian Army Rising Sun Badge 1904.png

Hi - could you please provide a source for Image:Australian Army Rising Sun Badge 1904.png? Without a source, I am not sure whether it is eligible to be tagged as {{PD-Australia}}. I understand you uploaded it some time ago and maybe you cannot remember. Thanks --A Y Arktos\^talk 23:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Bennett

I have again moved this article to his correct name, which was GORDON. Please don't move it back again. Adam 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolls-Royce Avon

Would you mind visiting the Rolls-Royce Avon talk page? I am curious about a statement it appears you added to the article. Maury 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poison gas in World War I FAR

Poison gas in World War I has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:World War I literature

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:World War I literature, by 84.66.17.239, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:World War I literature has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:World War I literature, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:World War I literature itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trench warfare up for review

Trench warfare has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Konstable 14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gallipoli_movie_poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gallipoli_movie_poster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt

Thank you for originating the Hawthorn Ridge Redoubt article. A quote you included reads, in part, "Higher and higher it rose, and with a horrible grinding roar the earth settles back upon itself, leaving in its place a mountain of smoke.". Is it possible a minor typo crept in? The word "settled" makes more sense in its context. I am thinking you may have the original reference work on hand or available, and will be able to say. Hertz1888 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from Malins' How I Filmed The War (p. 162-3), reproduced in Sheffield's The Somme (p. 48). Sheffield uses "settles". I don't have Malins' book so I can't confirm the primary source. 59.167.152.178 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gsl. No point to fixing what's not clearly broken. Best to leave it be & move on. I think this quirk enhances an already colorful quote. I appreciate your response. Very best, Hertz1888 03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waterloo Campaign Map

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, Image:Waterloo Campaign map-alt3.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:BattleboxStart

A tag has been placed on Template:BattleboxStart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Shrine of Remembrance has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

FILE:Australian Army Rising Sun Badge 1904.png

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:FILE:Australian Army Rising Sun Badge 1904.png. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett

Hi, I see you added a photograph of Lancashire Fusiliers heading for Gallipoli, said to be taken by Ashmead-Bartlett. Both the Imperial War Museum and Australian War Memorial have this and similar photos which they attribute to Ernest Brooks. ?? regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somme Maps

From images loaded into Commons, it is clearly evident that you are the Guru of WWI strategic maps. Any chance for you to assist on maps for some further battles? Farawayman (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Gsl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Ian Liddell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Curtiss Helldiver (band)

I have nominated Curtiss Helldiver (band), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtiss Helldiver (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:British 3rd Infantry Division1.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:British 3rd Infantry Division1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:British 36th (Ulster) Division Insignia.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:British 36th (Ulster) Division Insignia.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

File:Tel el Saba October 31 1917.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tel el Saba October 31 1917.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:William George Malone.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:William George Malone.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Greetings Gsl, I've been revising the Somme pages and have noticed that you have uploaded the most informative maps. If you have any more pending or fancy having a go at maps for Guillemont, Ginchy etc I'd be grateful for a look. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree these are excellent. Good work FWIW. Anotherclown (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:British 33rd Division insignia.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:British 56th (1st London) Division insignia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:British 41st Division insignia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:British 49th (West Riding) Division insignia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:British 32nd Division insignia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:British 21st Division insignia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:British 47th (2nd London) Division insignia.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kings Regiment history

Template:Kings Regiment history has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austro-Hungarian people has been nominated for merging

Category:Austro-Hungarian people has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Battle of Amiens (1918)

Battle of Amiens (1918) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]