User talk:Roy Al Blue

Battle stubs

Hey! Fantastic work on getting so many stubs on battles started! If I might ask a favor of you, however—if you could add any applicable categories of Category:Battles by country (for example, Category:Battles of the Roman Republic) to the stubs when you create them, it would be a great help. Thanks in advance, Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to add those fleebish category tags; it really is a huge help! Kirill Lokshin 04:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Another request, if I may: the sub-categories of Category:Battles by country are usually labeled by (quite specific) historical states or groups. This becomes particularly meaningful in the Middle Ages; for example, Category:Battles of Turkey versus Category:Battles of the Seljuk Turks, or Category:Battles of Italy versus Category:Battles of Venice and Category:Battles of Genoa. If it's not too much trouble, could you check to make sure that you're using the most specific categories when adding them?

Great work on creating so many needed stubs, by the way; you'll be done with the list of battles (which, unfortunately, is not quite complete) in no time. There's also a list here that might interest you. Kirill Lokshin

Battle stubs

Roy, while I find your project of battle stubs commendable, can you please inform me when you create new stubs on topics from Russian-Ukrainian history, such as Battle of the Tanais River or Battle of the Sit River. The latter article was rather inaccurate, stating that the battle was fought by Kievans near Kiev, although in fact it was fought several miles from my home, and I live farther from Kiev than Rome is from London. So please let me know about new Russia-related articles you start, so that I could fix the possible errors. Thanks, Ghirlandajo 12:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know I don't like battleboxes in stubs, especially on the battles where neither the casualties nor any other details were recorded. I'd better put the extant data in words. Battleboxes are good for long and detailed articles, for they represent the most important details in a nutshell. But that's just me. --Ghirlandajo 13:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date stuff

Are you sure you wanted to talk to ME? olivier 17:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kindly state in detail what you are refering to...

This is in regard to the article Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. I have removed two words from a sentence in that article due to blatent POV. Please be aware of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and stop adding bias to articles. Thanks. Roy Al Blue 20:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Have commented out the warning. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Siege of Edo

Hello, good work on Siege of Edo, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Siege of Edo? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or there are several different citation methods list at WP:CITET. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 20:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Short answer: No way to know, really, unless you ask one of the ArbCom members with Checkuser abilities.

Long answer: The IP is registered to SBC Internet Services, a California ISP, so it's probably somebody in California with a dialup account. Since their IP address may switch every time they connect, there's no way of tracking which edits belong to which user; this is the same problem we have with AOL customers. It could be a long-time anonymous user, or a user who isn't logged in, or just somebody making things up—there's really no good way to tell.

In any case, I don't think he's being particularly obnoxious yet, so there's no particular need to be concerned about it ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812

You seem to be inventing names for occurences during the War of 1812. Please provide your references when you are citing a battle. I don't believe these are the correct names for these conflicts.

Battle of Nova Scotia

 Battlefield 02:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Pardon me, but you seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that I vandalized a page. I did not (see explanation for why on my talk page). Please remove the warning you put on there because it wrong to give someone a warning simply because the one giving the warning is a quibbler with admin power, but not the ability to use it correctly. sophysduckling

If your purpose was just to find some vandalism, here is an article that could do with deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesh_Devarasetty

Thank you for removing the warning. I will be more careful with regard to making sure my edits are correct before I click "random article" again.

Warbox

I want to say that I have not vandalized any page on Wikipedia...I am confused as to why people are saying that I have. I have never even made a post to it and noticed today that I have messages and was shocked to find what I did there.

Please, remove this warning from my page and if you could explain to me what is going on, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you. We now use the "Warbox" rather than the previous various boxes used; see link below: Warbox

Cordially Battlefield 22:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg

Hi, Roy! Just wanted to comment, that the user changing spelling in this article seems to be a newbie, so I wouldn't bite him/her too hard. This person is most likely not aware of our policies yet. I provided a link for him/her to peruse. Should have probably mentioned a preview button, too. Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for the barnstar! It's not all that much trouble for me to add the notices, since you and Gsl have been keeping the new articles list updated :-) Keep up the great work! —Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battlebox no campaign

Just a quick note: {{Battlebox no campaign}} is up for deletion, so please don't use it on any more articles. We've been changing over the battleboxes to {{Infobox Military Conflict}}, so you could either do that or just leave it for somebody else; they'll all be done in a week or so anyways ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ciuna

Hy Roy! I'm Horatius of it.wiki. I think you wrote the stub about the battle linked above. Could you please write me where to find some more info about this battle? I think I read all Titus Livius but no sign of this battle!! I found some "battle of Cluvia" (Liv. IX,31) a very small one in the Samnites Wars. Thank for any help you (or other friend) can give! Vale! [1] --151.46.228.91 20:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know

Where did you get info about Battle of Saintes? It seems to be completely absent from the web. I would like to know that in order to enhance the es: stub. If you don´t mind, please answer me here. Thanks a lot, Emilio 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Calry Lough Gill

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Battle of Calry Lough Gill, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Addhoc 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Battle of Fiodh an Atha

An editor has nominated Battle of Fiodh an Atha, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Fiodh an Atha and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Battle of Devlin

An editor has nominated Battle of Devlin, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Devlin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Battle of Tochar Cruachain-Bri-Ele

An editor has nominated Battle of Tochar Cruachain-Bri-Ele, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tochar Cruachain-Bri-Ele and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox Galactic Civil War

Template:Campaignbox Galactic Civil War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Saint Charles

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Battle of Saint Charles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. andy (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of Mount Scorobas

The article Battle of Mount Scorobas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Google Scholar nor the Wikipedia Library provide any sources for this battle. Primary sources may exist, but secondary ones are necessary to fulfill WP:NOR.

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. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Battle of Doljești and Orbic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Doljești and Orbic 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/Battle of Doljești and Orbic 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 until the discussion has finished.

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]