User talk:Argos'Dad/Archive 3

DYK

On 2 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gustav Schleicher, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 17:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texan-Comanche Wars

Good morning! I am sorry I have not been as active, I have been at the beach, and am using my laptop. I began compiling a list of what I am calling the Texan-Comanche Wars articles:

Cuerno Verde
Buffalo Hump
Fort Parker Massacre
James W. Parker
Rachel Plummer
John Richard Parker
Cynthia Ann Parker
Quanah Parker
Peta Nocona
Council House Fight
Great Raid of 1840
Battle of Plum Creek
Bad Eagle
Battle of Little Robe Creek
Antelope Hills Expedition
Battle of Pease River
First Battle of Adobe Walls
Red River War
Ten Bears
Second Battle of Adobe Walls

I have not finished the list - indeed, I am just beginning, and wondered if it is possible to create a page specifically for the Texas-Comanche wars? I have no idea how to do such a thing, but it would be much better to have such a page and category, and we could put all the above articles on it. Several, such as Bad Eagle, Ten Bears, Cuerno Verde and both Adobe Walls articles, need complete rewriting. But it seems to me that the first step towards writing an article on the Texas-Comanche Wars would be creating a category called that, with a page linking all the articles above. I would then add several in addition. ("Raids into Mexico by the Comanche and Kiowa" is one that is needed, for instance, in addition to a military history article on the war between the Texans, from their province-of-Spain days, to Republic days on, with the Comanche!) I started on this project feeling that we needed a specific category for the Texas-Comanche wars, and that all articles in the category needed to be rewritten, and standardized. (I started with John Richard Parker last night, will finish it today, and move on) Can you set up such a category? That seems to me to be step one, and then I will standardize all the articles, linking them to the new category. THEN, I would write an article specifically on the Texas-Comanche Wars. What do you think, and if you agree, could you set up the new page and category? If you do, I will then link all the appropriate articles to it. THANKS! John1951 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"PS" I have not forgotten the article on the The Battle of Heliopolis, which, with any luck, will be posted wednesday night. I forgot and left my notes at home, including the draft, so will post it as soon as we get back home! Thanks again,John1951 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, it is easy to make a category and I will do so, but the thing thta is needed to pull all these articles together is the Texas-Indian Wars article. I wouldn't limit it to Comanches since in many of these instances there are other tribes involved. So, follow the broken link above to start the article (when you have time) and I will start the category now. It'sokay if the cat is different than the article... Hope you enjoyed the beach.Argos'Dad 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update--I found a category entitled [[Category:Battles involving the Comanche]]. I think that covers it. I will ensure that it is added to each of the articles you identified.Argos'Dad 14:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argos'Dad Thanks so much! What about calling it the Texas-Native American wars, or Texas-Indian Wars, if we don't have to worry about political correctness. I will start the article today, (since the one rewriting the Battle of Heliopolis, is done, so will post it as soon as we get back home). My #1 priority will be writing this new article. I think you are dead right that the link tying the other articles together is the new article. I can rewrite the others when this one is done. You are right that other tribes were involved, especially the Kiowa, who were hand in hand with their brothers the Comanche from 1790 on, when the two tribes made a pact to share the same hunting grounds, had a mutual defense pact, et al. That included the Kiowa Apache. Then there were the Tonkawa on the side of the Texans. So you are right as usual - it won't be limited to Comanche, though they were the "biggest" group on the Native American side. What do you think of going back to when anthropologists and military historians think the Comanche got horses, which would put the wars starting about 1710, and escalating in ferocity from 1836 on, when the Texans fought for their independance? I don't mean write a huge amount about that era, but putting in enough as background where people get a feel for how these Indians came to rule the Comancheria, and why conflict with the Texans was inevitable. The article will concentrate from 1836 on, if you agree. I welcome your thoughts, please, and in the interim, have started research and writing. THANKS AGAIN. John1951 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view (which I don't hold strongly) is that we can call it Texas-Indian Wars since that was the vernacular current in the period covered in the article, and Indian is not offensive (even if it is not preferred today). The point about current vernacular is important in response to your other point: should the article start in 1710? My thought is that before about 1820, the struggles were between Spanish colonial authorities (and French in some cases), and that should be a seperate article from the "Texas-Indian Wars" which would be between Anglo-Texan settlers and Comanche/Kiowa, etc. Argos'Dad 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on both issues. We can tenatively title the article - and I see "we" because I am hoping you will rewrite my draft after I post it, which so far, has vastly improved everything I have posted -- Texas-Indian Wars. I also agree that you make a huge and valid point in that prior to 1820 it should be a separate article on the struggles of the Spanish against the Indians in the Comancheria. 1820 is generally considered, (or was when I was in Texas!) the demarcation point when Anglo settlers began to immigrate to Texas in a major way. So the Texas-Indian Wars article should begin in 1820, and end with Quanah Parker's surrender of the last free band of the Comanche, (who at that point were the last free indians on the southern plains), a little over half a century later. Do you agree with that format? When that article is done, we might consider a second article on the earlier period, but that can be considered later. For now, we can just hit the highpoints in the "Background" section so casual readers understand what the Texans were up against. (You make a good point also in that French traders were a huge factor in what happened in Spanish New Mexico and Texas in that they provided the Plain's Indians with firearms and such items as iron arrowheads, and iron points for their lances, and better quality knives and handaxe blades!) I will concentrate my research and writing from 1820 on, actually, from 1821 on, when Mexico won her independance, and began to actively solicit Anglo settlers. Let me know if you think the time period 1821-June 2, 1875, (when Quanah and his band surrendered at Fort Sill in present-day Oklahoma - which they had traveled to from the Staked Plains in Texas), is what we should aim for, with the military conflicts divided in sections along that timeline? Thanks again, and as soon as you approve the timeline and general idea, I will research and write the draft, which should take me about 7-10 days. John1951 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline you have laid out and dileanation of articles sounds right. I may write a separate article that will interact with the Texas-Indian Wars that focuses on Indian policy by the Republic of Texas. There will be some overlap, but this fits a series I am doing on the Republic (diplomatic history of the Republic of Texas, political history of the Republic of Texas, naval policy, Indian policy, etc.

Take your time, by the way, I used to do speed trials and I found it wore me out and made this obsession of mine less fun :) Argos'Dad 16:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I will be extremely interested to read your article on the Indian policies of the Republic of Texas. (It was like night and day going from Sam Houston to Mirabeau B. Lamar!) What I found sad in my own readings on the Republic's policies was that if at any point they had been willing to recognize the boundries of the Comancheria, they could have had peace. As I recollect, Sam Houston once even got Buffalo Hump and the other chiefs to agree to such a treaty, but the Republic's Senate killed it by eliminating the clause recognizing the Comancheria! Anyway, I will be fascinated to read your article, and am working on the one on the military history of the Texas-Indian Wars! I appreciated the note on not setting time tables - yes, it eliminates some of the fun! :) John1951 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got home early, posted rewrite of Battle of Heliopolis

I would value your opinion, and help, on this rewrite. We left a day early, so I posted this, so I can concentrate on the Texas-Indian Wars article. Thanks! John1951 01:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would like to run the Texas-Indian Wars article outline by you

Good afternoon. As I noted above, we came home early, and I posted that article. I bother you too much, so I imposed on someone else to look at that one. The Texas-Indian Wars article though really needs your expertise, and your writing skills, if you don't mind. I was thinking of doing a prospective outline, and running it by you tonight or tomorrow afternoon after work -and making sure you thought it was the best way to approach the article before going further. Would that be okay? I really appreciate all your guidance and assistance.John1951 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you do not impose too much, but Cplakidas is a great source for Greek military matters and he will give you good advice. My quick perusal last night gave me the same impression that he had: too much background. :)

As for Texas-Indian Wars, I will look at it as soon as it is posted. Take care, my friend. Argos'Dad 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argos'Dad my friend, you are too kind - I know I was imposing on you, and I did not want to do too much of it! I know you are extremely well versed in Greek history, but you are also one of the few online I know of who is extremely well versed in Texas history. To be frank, it was easier to find someone to ask for help on Greek historical matters than it would be to find someone on Texas history! I felt I was imposing on you too much, and I desperately need your counsel on the Texas-Indian Wars article, so I decided to ask Cplakidas to look at the other article, hoping that I could then impose on you for the Texas articles without feeling so intrusive! Speaking of that article, on the background, I got carried away. I simply was fascinated that Amr essentially adopted Heraclius's strategy and tactics hook, line, and sinker! Have you ever wanted to ask someone in history questions, or wished you could? I would love to ask Amr if he consciously adopted Heraclius's plans! Do you ever wonder also if the "great man" theory is true? I cannot help but feel that had the Empire had Belisarius at the helm in Egypt, he would have trounced Amr, and all of history would have gone down another path. The Byzantines had the forces to stop Amr, they simply did not have anyone able to lead them. The Heraclius of the Persian campaigns could have stopped them as well! Oh well, the most useless of all games is "what if..." I will be back tomorrow night with an outline to run by you, and I cannot thank you enough. (I would like to do a great deal of work in the Texas arena, and really will need you! Thanks so much for being so willing to share your knowledge!) John1951 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prospective Texas-Indian Wars article outline being run by you

Hey my friend, this is the format I would suggest, if you agree – and please, correct it if you have a better idea!

Background– a brief section outlining how the Plains Tribes, especially the Comanche and Kiowa, were nearly as new to Texas as the Anglo settlers. They had been roaming that area only since the mid 1700’s, after driving the Apache out;
Early settlement from 1820 to 1836, this period includes the formation of the Texas Rangers as the first Indian fighting force by Stephen Austin, the approach of the Mexican Government towards the Plains tribes, and the early allegiance of the Tonkawa to the settlers, and the well known FORT PARKER MASSACRE;
Texas Independence 1836 what did the Indians do while the Texans were fighting for their independence?
Houston Presidency 1836-1838 what policies did the Republic pursue while Houston was president? The treaty at Tehuacana Creek; What if any other incidents occurred with the Indians during this period?
Lamar Presidency 1838-1841 an unmitigated disaster for Texas, why did the policies of Lamar lead to the Council House Fight, and Great Raid?

(subsections)

Council House Fight
Great Raid of 1840
Battle of Plum Creek

Second Houston Presidency 1841-1844 What did Houston do so differently that Buffalo Hump actually agreed to a peace treaty during Houston’s presidency?
Jones Presidency, entry into the Union 1844-1845 Year of Jones presidency, why did treaty of treaty at Tehuacana Creek collapse?
First Union Years, up to 1858 1845-1858 How did the Mexican American War effect the Plains Indians? Why did the Penateka Comanches come in to the reservation?
Pre-Civil War 1858-1861 the civil war approaches, how did this affect the Plains Indians and their war with the Texans?

(subsections)

Antelope Hills Expedition-Battle of Little Robe Creek
Battle of Pease River

Civil War Era 1861-1865 What happened during the Civil War? In Texas, for instance, the frontier was rolled back over 100 miles! First Battle of Adobe Walls
Post Civil War: The twilight years of the Plains Tribes 1865-1874 Second Battle of Adobe Walls, the last stand of the Plains Tribes
Military Analysis: why the Plains Tribes held off the Spanish and Mexicans, and failed against the Texans

(subsections)

1820-1840 before Jack Hays and the revolver the Comanche and Kiowa, in particular, held at least their own, and a slight advantage (in my opinion) over the Texans
1840-1874 after Jack Hays the end of the Plains Tribes coincided with the revolver and repeating rifles
Conclusion cultural imperatives were different with the Texans – they would not put up with their children and women being stolen, and combined with advancing technology, they put an end to the Plains Tribes and their way of life.

What do you think? John1951 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this outline looks excellent! Wow--we have a lot of work to do :) Argos'Dad 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do have a lot of work ahead. You have to figure that you will rewrite the draft, and add to it, especially since we are entering an area where your expertise will really come into play. This is a fascinating area of history though; for instance, I was unaware till we started this that the Comanches still had the military edge till 1840, despite HALF their population being killed in the first wave of diseases in the late 18th century! Well, I would guess I will have the draft ready for posting and your rewrite/addition by late next week. I won't rush, but I love the subject matter, so it is not hard to work on it! Take care, and thanks again for all your help - I really believe the two of us will finish a really excellent article in this one. John1951 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas schooner Invincible

BTW, check out the article I have been working on: Texan schooner Invincible at your convenience. I'd appreciate your comments. Argos'Dad 02:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is outstanding! I wish I could write half that well! You combined an excellent grasp of the historical facts with an ability to tell the story of the Invincible so well that I really enjoyed it. Do you think that Houston's lack of desire to have a real navy was part and parcel of his more-or-less open desire to be part of the US, i. e. a fear that incidents could come in the way of annexation of Texas by the US? Great article!!John1951 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice comments! I do think Houston pursued an insular policy in order to make Texas viable for annexation. But he also wanted to keep Texas viable generally, and thought peace was more predictable than war with Indians, Mexicans and others... Argos'Dad 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - Houston was a realist. There were 30,000 people in Texas on 1836, not counting the Indians, and he was under no illusions that they could defeat the Mexicans if the country really mounted an all out effort to counter after San Jacinto. Further, he was not sure they could stand off the Comanches, though they only numbered about 15,000, including their allies the Kiowa. I think you are on the money - he wanted peace as the best way to keep the country alive! Also, frankly, they could not have afforded a war with anyone, even had they had the men. In any event, you wrote a great and interesting article - I am already mostly through the early settlement section, and hope you can work your magic on this article as well! John1951 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas-Indian Wars

Well, I am excited, the draft is up, and I am working on a separate article for the Battle of Neches. Please let me know what you think of this article - I did a huge amount of research for it, and I hope you are pleased, and it awaits your magic touch! John1951 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PS I did post the draft of the Battle of neches so you can look at that also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John1951 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I accidently put the title with a small "n" on Neches, and don't know how to correct it, if you would be so kind. (I am sorry I forgot to sign the PS!) John1951 22:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you improved it greatly with the first rewrites, but I am really curious to know what you thought of the research and work I put into it - I really tried harder on this than most things I work on, even at work. Obviously, I hope you approved of it, even though I knew it would need major rewriting, I was hoping to give you a good draft to work from.John1951 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I think it is really well done and needs very little shaping. I especially like the way it flows and tells a story. My only concern is length. It is really informed by the Main articles, I think we need to work on shrinking it by about 50%. We can be more summary in this article since so much of it links to other pages. I know it is hard to hear things like this, since you obviously put A LOT of work into it, but there it is. Why don't you take a crack at reducing the part up to Fort Parker Massacre and I will try to attack that middle part tonight with some shaping edits. Really, an outstanding effort. I am impressed at how quickly your writing has improved! Argos'Dad 02:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I am going to go to bed tonight, (that is what happens when you get older, you get tired!) but yes, I will start editing it down tomorrow. THANKS on thinking my writing has improved. You can take a bow on that one, your hard work in helping me has paid off! Thanks again, and I really do believe I managed to tell a story in this one - the first time I felt this way, that it actually told a really sad story, about cultures clashing, and what happened to the loser.John1951 02:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArgosDad, I am back. It has been a trying week, and I wanted to touch base with you before beginning work on Texas-Indian Wars. Do you still believe it needs to be cut by half? Any thoughts on what to eliminate, or should I just aim to trim it down to essentials, and leave detail to the specific articles? In any event, your guidence would be appreciated, thanks.John1951 18:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I have been on travel and unable to spend the kind of timeI want on WP and the Texas-Indian Wars article. I do think it needs to be shrunk, but not across-the-board. What I recommend is more of an overview of how all the subordinate articles fit together. You have told a good story, but that is probably not what we need here. So, I would radically drcrease the sections on how the various groups got to Texas and focus instead on what happened between Anglo-Texans and Native Americans. More on the relationships of the tribes to each other and the Texans would be a definite plus, since that information won't likely appear anywhere else. In short, present what's unique to the Texas-Indian Wars and reduce what's covered elsewhere or is background information. I will help as time permits. Argos'Dad 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Argos, I appreciate, as always, the help and guidence. I will begin working on this tomorrow. I see what you are looking for, and believe we can get there. (For instance, as to relationships between some of the tribes, I don't believe the fact is anywhere in wikipedia that Placido, the faithful friend of the Texans, was murdered with almost half of his tribe on the reservation by the Comanches and their allies in revenge for Little Robe Creek and other injuries through the years. Another bit of information along the line you are referring to, (I believe) is the fact that Chief Bowl was actually half Anglo, half cherokee, (his mother was a cherokee, his father a scots-immigrant). I will concentrate on adding that kind of detail, and deleting stuff other articles cover. Thanks again, and as I said, I will get to work on it, and redo it section by section. John1951 01:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Akropolis german flag.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Akropolis german flag.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. Chris B • talk • contribs 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have provided the requisite FUR. Cheers! Argos'Dad 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rationale. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review of One Bayfront Plaza

Thank you very much for your review of this article. I believed I've addressed all of the concerns you've listed on the article's talk page, so please feel free to come back and re-review the article at any time. Thanks again, Rai-me 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scott (governor of Kentucky)

Just a reminder, but you placed a {{GAReview}} tag on Charles Scott (governor of Kentucky) on September 22, 2007, 11 days ago. Could you please finish up a review, place it on hold (noting issues with the criteria on the article's talk page), or remove the tag so that someone else could review it? Articles should generally only be tagged as 'under review' for no longer than about 5-7 days.

Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry-- I totally forgot! Argos'Dad 03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Texan schooner Independence, Texan schooner Brutus

On 5 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner Independence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 5 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner Brutus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Ostend Raid

Thankyou for your review and GA pass on this article, your comments and attention were much appreciated.--Jackyd101 15:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Navy infobox

Hello Argos! How are things going? My university exams period ended today, so I took a look at the infobox for the Hellenic Navy I had started. You can find it here, with a full example of its use here. It is based on the old Infobox Ship format. The badge is optional, the ensign can be alternated between the royal and republican versions, or possibly even the merchant navy flag of 1822-28 or the various islands' flags during and before the Greek Revolution, if we wish to take it that far. Instead of creating a whole previous career section, I limited myself to merely providing the link to the name it had during its previous service (I am thinking about adding a "subsequent career" too, but I know of only one case, the "Vasilefs Georgios". Thus I don't know whether it is worthwhile, I'd like your opinion on this). I also added a website link. Any comments would be welcome! Best regards, Cplakidas 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Συγχαρητήρια στη λήξη των διαγωνισμών σου. Μ'αρέσει το infobox πάρα πολύ, αλλά σκέφτομαι ότι ίσως η σημαία φαίνεται καλύτερα δίπλα στήν σειρά Career όπως αύτο. Τί λες? Argos'Dad 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought of leaving the flag next to the career, but this is the "exclusively HN" infobox, so the rationale for putting it there, namely to differentiate between the various nations, as in Infobox:Ship, doesn't exist. Furthermore, the flag's position right on top makes it immediately clear that this is about a Greek ship. Anyhow, I tried a few possible variations of what you suggested, and I don't really like any of them. The best, I think, is this. But my preference is certainly for the original version. If that's OK with you, and there are no other suggestions, I shall create a new template "Greek Ship" and put it in the relevant articles. BTW, university exams in Greece are known as "εξετάσεις", or, more commonly, "Εξεταστική περίοδος". Cheers, Cplakidas 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the original version. Full steam ahead :) Thanks for working on this! Ευχαριστώ για την διόρθωση. Δε μου λές, τι σπουδάζεις--η εισαι καθηγητής;

OK, I'll go ahead then! As for the rest, σπουδάζω Ηλεκτρολόγος Μηχανικός (Electrical & Computer Engineer). Εσύ? Σπουδάζεις ή έχεις δουλειά? Cplakidas 18:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Κώστα: Αμα ξεκινησεις, θα σε βοηθεισω. Ειμαι δικηγόρος, γεννημένος στήν Αμερικη, αλλα μικρός ερχόμουνα στήν Έλλαδα κάθε καλοκαίρη. Your English is excellent--it sounds like you are a native speaker. Στέλιο Argos'Dad 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Anglo-egyptian war.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Anglo-egyptian war.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 22:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Frederick Seymour.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Frederick Seymour.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, 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, 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:Non-free content, 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 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche raids into Mexico

Good morning! Sorry I have not been around as much, there was a lot of family stuff going on, and I have been ill to boot. I am back though, and wondered if you thought the subject of Comanche raids into Mexico could use a separate article. As you know better than I do, the raids into Mexico, which took place for over a century, were particularly devastating in the two decades prior to the Mexican-American War, and a large reason the five northernmost Mexican states did not contribute troops to the national Army (in any meaningful number) during that War, which may have been crucial in some battles. What do you think of an article on those raids, the alleged US role in them, and their effect on military history? John1951 09:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, sorry for your illness--I have also been dealing with family stuff and am in Houston right now. I do think that an article on Comanches in Mexico would complement the other articles nicely. BTW, you do know more about this topic than I do, since your article have taught me much! Argos'Dad 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings my friend. I hope that you and your family are well, and that whatever family stuff you are dealing with is better. As to wiki matters, I appreciate the compliment - believe me, I have learned a lot from yourself in your edits on the Republic of Texas, and that period in general, not to mention your general help! THANK YOU. On the issue of the Comanche raids into Mexico, I will draft a good article, and send it to you for review. I think between the two of us, we can whip up a really good article that fits in with the recent Native American articles, and compliments (and explains!) much of the Republic's history. I was stunned recently in reading a book on the Comanches to realize had they raided East instead of south, they could have raided Atlanta, or even Baltimore! And the US certainly used the deadly Comanche raids into Mexico to destablize that country prior to the Mexican-American War! Well, again, hope things are better, and take care...John1951 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Salamis‎

The article Battle of Salamis‎ you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Salamis‎ for things needed to be addressed. Victor12 05:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.

A while ago, you pointed out where and why this article failed the good article review, in part because of information suppression, and said you'd be watching it. One big reason, which the non-TM associated editors were also concerned about, was the lack of appropriate controversy and criticism of this figure. On Oct 20, confronted with a virtual press release under the guise of an article, I tagged the article with NPOV, COI, and Advertisement tags, as well as an RFC under religious topics. While the TM associated editors did make significant changes in response to make the article more concise, less of an advertisement and improve POV language (in short, it is significantly better), it still lacks criticism, still features fringe theories like TM-Sidhi (yogic flying, etc.) without critical comment, and is still essentially generated by TM associated editors with COI. On Oct 23, a TM associated editor removed all the tags and the RFC because they consider the issues resolved. The truth is that the constant information suppression by editors with COI blindspots, lacking followup sanctions, deters editors from bothering by now, as the talk pages continue to show. I think the NPOV and COI tags are clearly still justified, and the RFC requires more time than a few days to be effective in getting input from non-involved editors, which is what the article really needs. But to avoid the pattern of an endless edit war with all these TMers who own the article, I'd appreciate advice on what to do next.--Dseer 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dseer, I know how frustrating it is to watch editors systematically steer an article to be not only POV, but also spam. Here is my advice: Seek comment on the article Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles, as follows:

Instructions

  1. Select the template {{RFCreli}}
  2. Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral.
  3. Place the template at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows: {{RFCreli | section=section title !! reason=neutral statement !! time=~~~~~}} using the section title selected in step two and a brief neutral statement that will appear on the appropriate RFC page (example). Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature. Do not use "subst".
  4. Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template (ideally the same statement used in step 3)
  5. Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest.

I will also attempt to weigh in on the talk page. Argos'Dad 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that including the {{RFCreli}} template on this page has caused this page to appear on the RFCreli list, I have enclosed the template in nowiki tags to prevent this, as I don't think it was your intention to request comments on your talk page. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC template added to Maharishi

Have added RFC template. Your comments welcome. --Dseer 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On November 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner Zavala, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Texan schooner Zavala article! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--I am pleased that you noticed. Once I start writing on a topic like that (hidden history) I feel the need to complete the whole story. There is a lot to the Texas Navy...Argos'Dad 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Nixon GA

Hi there. I will work on those; thanks a lot! Best, Happyme22 04:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Glucksbergstamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Glucksbergstamp.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 02:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:George2stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George2stamp.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 11:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greek.destroyer.bas.georgios.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Greek.destroyer.bas.georgios.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 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texan schooner Austin

On 7 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner Austin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congrats on making the lead item! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USRC Ingham (1832), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 23:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the North Fork of the Red River

Greetings my friend! Would you be so kind as to evaluate the new article I posted on the Battle of the North Fork of the Red River? [1] I am still working on the Comanche Raids on Mexico article - because of the implications of that one, I am being VERY SURE on my sourcing. John1951 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS for evaluating the new article. I wonder, is there any way I could email you the draft version of the Comanche raid article prior to posting it? I would like your opinion on the language, (because it is going to be controversial, in that elements of the establishment in this country used the ferocious Indians against the Mexicans to weaken their country prior to the war - a conclusion a number of historians have come to in recent years) I would like your opinion, if possible, and editing if you felt like doing so, prior to posting. I will be ready sometime this week, (the last of the source material will be here) Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. John1951 03:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what is your email address? Argos'Dad 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

johnny.martin56@yahoo.com, and thank you for the great pictures you put with the North Fork article! It improves it 100%. We are slowly but surely adding articles on a period and subject which was surprisingly unreported on wikipedia, the Texas-Indian wars. John1951 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pat for First Lady.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pat for First Lady.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morris-Taney Revenue Cutters

I've renamed this to Morris-Taney class cutter per convention, and fixed links on the associated articles & template. Thanks for making articles on these old USRC ships! Maralia 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the names. These old ships are pretty interesting. Thanks for noticing my work! Argos'Dad 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Image:Naval Battle of Campeche.gif

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Naval Battle of Campeche.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Naval Battle of Campeche.gif is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Naval Battle of Campeche.gif, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:George2stamp.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:George2stamp.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. Aksi_great (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi and TM again...

Argos, can you weigh in on the talk pages for Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? I added documentation to show that TimidGuy has already been determined by the COI Noticeboard to have been in violation of COI since last Spring and should not be editing anyway, with similar implications for the other TMers who insist on owning the article. I did not want to pursue this and prepare for what will likely end up at Arbcom by myself only to get beat up by all the TMers, but there are enough non-TM editors now to where your input would be timely.--Dseer (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will watch the discussion and weigh in, as appropriate. You have him dead-to-rights, so this should proceed in a pretty straightforward manner. Argos'Dad 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK triple play

On 30 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner San Antonio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 30 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner San Bernard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 30 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texan schooner San Jacinto, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Triple play in the same fact! --Royalbroil 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texan schooner Independence GA on hold

Notes left on talk page, by Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) two days ago. You were not informed via talk page at the beginning of the one week as a courtesy. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding image SimaVasileionEllados.svg

Hi!
I was wondering if i can offer my help at repairing the image so i could re-upload it to wikipedia.
To be able doing so, i will need the image from which u have tried to create the SVG file, which is inside your computer (i hope u haven't deleted it) at C:\Documents and Settings\Steve & Brian\My Documents\Steve's Pictures\Wikimedia\SimaVasileion4.PNG, and mail it to me
Oren neu dag (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the offer. I am visiting family for the holidays and will send the image as soon as I return home. Best regards, Argos'Dad 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi! I wanted to ask if I could impose on you to classify new articles Dohäsan, Little Arkansas Treaty and the completely rewritten (one sentence to a full article) article Satanta. Thanks a great deal, and any work you feel either needs to be a good article, please let me know, and I will take care of it. JohninMaryland (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Zappeio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zappeio.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 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Greece: Class + Importance

Hi, just noticed the classification of the Chios article, (WikiProject Greece|class=Start|importance=Low). It would be helpful if the issues with the structure and grammar (relative to class B) were spelt out in the discussion page to aid future editing.

Personally, while it doesn't read well it doesn't seem to have anything major wrong with it.

Also don't really understand the importance issue - can you explain why the Samos article is High and Chios is Low? --AlekH (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:HOGOpenTasks/Merge

A tag has been placed on Template:HOGOpenTasks/Merge 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.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AEK Athens F.C.

Hi,I have been a user on wikipedia since June 1,2007.I have been mostly editing Greek Football(Greek NT,AEK,Super League Greece ect.)...you "rated" the AEK Athens FC page on April 12,2007,i feel that i have improved it,and i do not think its a "Start" rating....can you rate it again..??The-Real-ZEUS (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]