User talk:A.S. Brown/Archives1

Sam Spade

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Nurenburg Trials Page

Thank you for your message regarding my alleged vandalism. I simply deleted extraneous keystrokes someone else has left in the article. The article's content was left unmolested by me. I checked the revisions and this is the IP Address of the offender: 24.248.184.91 24.19.230.235 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg

I added my response on my talk page. –Joke137 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The True Powers of the Gomery Commission

Hi there. I moved this piece from Talk:Sponsorship scandal here, because that page is really only for discussion of how to improve the article Sponsorship scandal, not analysis or discussion of the issue in general.

If there are specific things you find lacking in the sponsorship scandal article, feel free to edit that article, or mention what you find lacking on the talk page. However, keep in mind that (for example) speculation on the extent of Gomery's powers shouldn't be added to the article unless it represents a noteworthy point of view on the subject (i.e. one held by many individuals). Regards, Saforrest 14:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of WWI

I like your recent addition to the page. "Thinly veiled admonitory allegory" is a phrase I hope to use in conversation someday. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Brown,

I noticed your wonderful comments on the Causes of WW1 talk page. I have felt for a long that Werchovsky and loje come off as German apologists, sometimes in an overt way. I think studying the causes of WW1 is very important because one of the arguments the Nazis put forward was that Germany did not start WW1 in any way, that Germany was blameless. I thought your arguments and debates with them very convincing.76.94.18.217 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette76.94.18.217 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

Just out of curiousity, what's the relevance of the book reference you added to David Irving? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looking forward to seeing some of the material from it show in the article. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 07:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dmowski

You did a good job, and now that you have your own username account, you should get messages addressed to you without any delays :) Glad to see you decieded to stick around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for getting back to me - and I am happy to see you are back to Wiki. Please note that I have just found a source for this quote - see Talk:Roman Dmowski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Note it is NOT the same quote - a similar one, but actually more 'antisemitic' then the other one. Two minor notes: 1) you know how to use Google_Print#Book_Search? 2) When replying on Wiki, remember that bottomposting is the rule. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google Print is very easy - the article above should give you some tips, but you can verify the quote I gave you just by clicking the link I mention on the RD talk page. GP is one of the best things that have happened to scholars in the last year, I think :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuremberg Trials

Please see Talk:Nuremberg Trials. Lupo 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela Bock

Hi, in de.wiki we have just had a complainig about the birthdate of Gisela Bock not to be correct. As the article here was started before the one in the german wikipedia, could you please give information about your source? 1942 seems to be correct, but I couldn't yet confirm the rest. Thanks, --Dbenzhuser 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Dbenzhuser 22:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move of Anglophile

I reverted your cut and paste move of Anglophile to Anglophilia, because this isn't how it is done on Wikipedia. Please read Help:Moving a page. Edward 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranke

Thanks for your additions to the Ranke page. You put in a lot of work. -- TheMightyQuill 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Kennan

Hi, you added

John Lukacs (editor with the introduction) George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946 : the Kennan-Lukacs Correspondence, (Columbia, Mo. : University of Missouri Press, 1997).

in the References section in George F. Kennan. Is that book used as a source in the article or why did you add it? If Kennan contributed in the writing of this book maybe i should be in the Publications section instead. I'm not sure if he actually did though. Vints 10:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied in my talk page. Vints 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

Hi. I just wanted to drop you a note to congratulate you on the fine work you've done on this article. Keep it up. --Guinnog 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" edits

Hi -- I've noticed that you aren't using the "This is a minor edit" checkbox correctly in a lot of your edits. Please take a quick look at Help:Minor edit. Thanks. KarlBunker 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Rehnquist

Hi. I agree with your removal of the "current event" tag from William Rehnquist, but just as an FYI point, the tag wasn't a remnant from the time of his death—it was added when some new medical records about him were released and in the news a couple of weeks ago. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Hello, thought I would stop-by and thank you for adding the articles to the List of Adolf Hitler books section...great job ! Headphonos 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this barnstar, which you can put on your User Page:

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded to A.S. Brown for contributions to military history articles.

The Reichtags Fire

Dear Dr Brown, please realize that a couple of years ago a German scholar detected, and published, a relevant source (a report written by Ralph C. Busser 1934: "The Riddle of the Revolution") on that issue: Osteuropa in Tradition und Wandel. Leipziger Jahrbücher (ed. Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Sachsen [RLS Saxony), 3 (1) 2001, 217-283, cordially, CoStA 80.136.91.148 14:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reichstag fire

Hello! Please explain your reversion [1]. --90.241.129.187 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, don't then. I shall revert back. --90.241.129.187 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I am the same person, merely my IP address has changed.)

Thanks for responding; as my IP address changed I was not notified you had. I assumed you had seen my message but consciously chosen not to respond as the logs showed you had visited and edited Wikipedia in the intervening time.

With regards to the former part of your message, you are mistaken. I did not make any changes to what the Reichstag is called, so your reversion did not address your concern: I only changed what the page the link, when clicked on, led to. Indeed, I can still see 'German Parliament' up there in the article, and I suggest you change it now if that's what you're worried about. (Personally I think it reads better if the word 'Reichstag' isn't mentioned in the same sentence, but I don't particularly care about that.)

With regards to the latter part of your message, thank you for your diatribe on how Wikipedia works, but I have been editing for about five years now and I'm afraid it wasn't necessary. While the sentiment on not contributing if you do not wish to be overruled is a fine one, it is not really applicable in this instance as I attempted to open a channel of discussion before I reverted you back to be sure you had a good reason for your actions, and thus was not defending my 'work' purely for the fact it was mine: if you did have a good reason, then I would have let things lie.

Also, don't worry; I'm not offended in the slightest! This happens all the time on this project. --62.136.64.235 00:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935

Greetings, A. S! I thought you would like to know that there is a detailed discussion on the Humanities Reference Desk (July 25, item 6.4) arising from the objections you raised on the talk page of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. You are right; this page is abysmally misleading. In fact I would consider that this to be a case where nothing would be better than something! Anyway, I have responded at length on the Humanities Desk. Would you consider rewriting the whole thing? I will give you all the support I can. Regards Clio the Muse 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reichstag Fire

Thanks Webhat (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A.S. Brown: Although my German meanwhile is not at all as rosty like my English;-) I´ve got equal problems to understand the very message of that text - I would like to interprete in the manner Hannah Arendt (in 1964) worked out: `This should have never happened`, but I fear that´s an overinterpretation of "Rückwirkungsverbot" (although the text mentioned "Notverordnung" [emergency decree] dated Febr. 28, 1933). The only thing the declaration of the the "Bundesanwaltschaft" cleared up - acc. to the individual Lubbe-case he would have never been killed. The text sounds as if German lawyers as members of a prominent juridical agency like "Bundesanwaltschaft" were afraid of publicly delaring: The total Reichstag Fire Trial was from the very beginning to the last end completely illegal (and as such a crime itself) and, in the sense of H.A., should have never had happened. Looking on the role of the public prosecutor, at that time named "Reichsanwalt", this would mean: Lubbe should have never accused. This would be a strictu-sensu-argumentation in an anti-Filbinger way; Hans F. publicly declared as BW-Prime Minister (1978): ´Was damals Recht war kann heute nicht Unrecht sein´ [What was (regarded) as right (during the Nazi years) can never be illegal now] - but I fear it´s not the business of any prominent juridical figure in current Germany (like Mrs. Harms) to think any moral, political, and juridical problem to an end, for if so "Bundesanwaltschaft" must have stated publicly whenever generalizing the Lubbe-issue: What at that time was (self) declared as right was in fact basically illegal (if not criminal) ... best, M. Eser 80.136.115.190 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 80.136.111.75 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another link

[[2]] 80.136.66.244 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your edit on David Irving article

I noticed your edit and wanted to bring to your attention a request to move currently proposed on Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov. The name, used in several English publications, is derived from David Irving's 196s translation of Keitel's memoirs, and is not the accepted form of reference to the Red Army offensive in German sources. Although it was suggested that I am introducing original research into the article by virtue of renaming, in my perception the use of the current title in fact forms a single source reference for the article title based on non-academic and unqualified translation lacking substantiation in either German or Russian sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eupen-Malmedy and not Eupen-Malmédy

I have noticed that you have changed the title of the article Eupen-Malmedy to Eupen-Malmédy[3] under the motive that the "French name is the correct one". I would like to know whether you have a reliable source for this. Because as far I know (my birth place is Waimes, 8 km away from Malmedy), the French name of this city is Malmedy and nothing else. In case of doubt you can also check the official website fo the city where it clearly appears it must be written Malmedy and not Malmedy. Since I could manage to revert your change may I kindly ask you to do it. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally found the mean to revert your change. --Lebob-BE (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You added on note by the German natonalist Goerdeler‎ that called for destruction of Poland. Could you tell me more ?--Molobo (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am astonished

By your presence and extensive knowledge. It is rare to find such gem among Wikipedia contributors in the flood of editors. My best regards and many thanks. --Molobo (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler

Hi, first of all many thanks for the great work that you are doing. However, I have a simple request. MoS specifies that references should come after punctuation, in particular the reference should follow the period at the end of the sentence and a further period should not follow the reference. I have started to fix these but I notice they have been broken again. It would be helpful if you would follow this convention, please. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

Hi, on your latest edit to David Irving you wrote "island that was crowed with other people's" I'd guess that was meant to be crowded as opposed to crewed? Jonathan Cardy (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice writing on Paul von Hindenburg

I just came across the Paul von Hindenburg article via Special:Random, and found it quite absorbing reading. Looking in the history, I see that you were responsible for this. I just wanted to say thanks; such work is appreciated. You may also be interested in http://en.citizendium.org, if you haven't already heard of it. -- 75.213.238.122 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 18:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nice work on René Massigli, but you could save a lot of time if you fully used reference citation mechanism. If you need the same reference more than once, name the ref tag. For example, you need to use Introduction to Politics by John Smith twice. So you do this like this:

Germany is a democracy.<ref name=smith>Smith, John. ''Introduction to Politics'', page 30.</ref>
It has a two-tier parliament.<ref name=smith/>

See the second time you don't need to re-type the entire ref. It's enough to just to name it. Notice / the second time the reference is used. Also, if you cite from different pages, you can simple give a range (like Smith, John. Introduction to Politics, pages 30-35). It is not really neccessary to make a new reference only because the page number changed. But if you want to do that, of course, you can. But in such case I would suggest using two-tier citation system as I introduced in René Massigli: you give only author and page number in between ref tags, and full book information is presented under the article. If you have any questions, just ask me! Renata (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you adopted the shorter citation mechanism. I hope you found that it saves some time ;) I wanted to tell you two things. First, if you are naming the references, you need to provide the content only once. In fact, the code will completely disregard whatever is in between the second pair of ref tags if it has the same name as the first. So modifying my earlier example,

Germany is a democracy.<ref name=smith>Smith, John. ''Introduction to Politics'', page 30.</ref>
It has a two-tier parliament.<ref name=smith>John Smith does not know what he is talking about</ref>

would give the following result:

Germany is a democracy.^[1] It has a two-tier parliament.^[1]

^ ^a ^b Smith, John. Introduction to Politics, page 30. Cite error: The named reference "smith" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

See, the comment in the second tag does not show up. It is "overwritten" by the first tag. So it is a waste of effort to put anything in between the second pair of ref tags. The second time you use the same reference, simply type in <ref name=smith/> (note a slash after smith - that's what causes the magic trick to happen).

Second, dots and commas should go before ref tags, and not before. So for example, you would type in (note the location of the period):

Germany is a democracy.<ref name=smith/>

and not

Germany is a democracy<ref name=smith/>.

But these are small things. You are doing a great job. Keep it up, and if you need some help, just drop me a note. Renata (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring at Ward Churchill

I have refactored your contribution to Ward Churchill. Please see Talk:Ward Churchill for my discussion of the more appropriate location for your discussion. LotLE×talk 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length and user-friendliness

A while back I commended you on Talk:Adolf Hitler on your many contributions of high-quality material but also asked that you consider editing down the content to a manageable length or move off some of it to relevant sub-articles. This is because any Article over, say, 100 kilobytes in length, no matter how well-written, is really too long to take in comfortably in one sitting. Perhaps you missed my comment there, or why haven't you replied yet?

The same goes for other articles to which you have made major contributions, like David Irving and Ernst Nolte.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying on my Talk page. Please do not feel rushed, real-life concerns always come first, I understand that. When you are ready please let me know how I might be able to help.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing about the Von Ribbentrop article, which is what led me here. It's incredibly well written, but maybe just too long for this venue. John2510 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E. H. Carr

Hey. Have you considered putting this article up at WP:FAC? I read it a little while back and it's arguably one of the best I've read on this site, very impressive work. Wizardman 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's too long, too turgid, and too biased. PiCo (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good but over-long. I'd recommend additional subheads and a couple more pictures to break things up. Very good work though. Carrite (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fromkin

Is 'Europe's Last Summer: Why the World Went to War in 1914' the book you referred to in your always interesting and erudite comments on the Weinberg discussion page? I note there's a copy going cheap on Amazon and was contemplating a punt. (I ask here because I fear we're going to get bumped off that page by a jobsworth) :0)Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nolte

Hi, I really appreciate your work on the Ernst Nolte article. I've been copy-editing it for quite some time, doing my best not to alter any of the intended meaning of the text, as I understand it. It's really a high level article, thanks to your contributions. I hope my working it over does not create any obstacles for your further enhancing it.

Cheers,

DBaba (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joachim von Ribbentrop article

I just wanted to thank you for your excellent work in expanding the Joachim von Ribbentrop article and to inform you that I've requested a peer review of the article and intend on improving it further to meet GA status. Wikipedia is very fortunate to have quality editors like yourself. Regards, œ ^™ 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one small request if I may.. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is most commonly placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes, as recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides. If you could please make an effort to place the <ref> tag after any punctuation marks it would save a lot of time for copyeditors and those that try to get articles nominated for Featured status as that's usually what's required. But if you prefer doing it the other way it's no big deal. See WP:REFPUNCT for details. -- œ ^™ 01:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist historians (American)

I've noticed you substantial work on Harry Elmer Barnes. So I thought you might be interested in the above. I would appreciated if you contributed to this stub which you may know is somewhat related to Barnes since he's the link between the "good" revisionists and the "bad" ones. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this posting to Ludvikus's talk page, you might like to read historical revisionism and suggest some improvements on the talk page of that article. Ludvikus will not be able to comment there until next May, but I am sure there are other editors who would be interested to here your suggestions. -- PBS (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But feel free to make postings on my talk page. I'm very interested in your analysis. I read carefully your thoughts which you posted previously. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles

Hy there, I recently stumbled upon the article Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles and decided to improve it. You seem to posses some knowledge about the issue. Perhaps you could give me your opinion upon the improvements (preferably upon the talkpage of the article in question)?

Please take a look on this Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Please help me translating this "diplomatic English" into layman's terms. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Controversial command decisions, World War II

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Controversial command decisions, World War II. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, A.S. Brown. You have new messages at Talk:David Irving.
Message added 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, A.S. Brown. You have new messages at Talk:David Irving#Article length.
Message added 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, A.S. Brown. You have new messages at Talk: David Irving.
Message added 02:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As the creator of this new article, please see Talk:David Irving, secton Merger from Irving trial regarding proposed merge. Minor4th (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, Prince of Eulenburg

I corrected several typos which just jumped to my eyes in the text that you added to Philip, Prince of Eulenburg. I'm a bit worried that some of them were actually in the original text and should not have been corrected. Could you please have a look? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Blumentritt

Thank you for your very enlightening contribution to this article, which has been a pet project of mine. I was unaware of the memos which you quoted, or of the dismissive attitude Blumentritt seems to have had toward Soviet Russia before the German defeats there. In view of this, the article may take a bit of revising. In my research on Blumentritt he has made the impression on me of having always been a skilled talker, and somewhat of an ingratiating personality, and that furthermore he usually aimed at saying what his audience wished to hear. The quotes you have inserted seem consistent with that. I will have to obtain the Erickson book--just when I thought I had read every possible secondary source on the man in English! Revcasy (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einsatzgruppen references

Why are you reverting to extremely verbose referencing style on Einsatzgruppen etc? It isn't convenient to have to read the entire reference to see what page number it;s on. (Hohum ^@) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, A.S. Brown. You have new messages at Hohum's talk page.
Message added 00:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Merry Xmas

Hope you're ok. Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Bolshevism

Hi. I removed some material from this article a couple of weeks ago. This was mainly to remove excessive verbosity and to take out some material that was poorly sourced. I noticed that you made a series of edits restoring much of this material. You may not have noticed that I gave reasons for the removals in talk, so if you really think this material should go back in, I'd appreciate you explaining your reasoning there. Thanks and Happy New Year. --FormerIP (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This might be of interest to you: [4] Not new to me, since Polish historians already did such research years ago. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation & refs.

Thank you for your contributions to 1948 Arab–Israeli War, but please, could you follow the policy at WP:REFPUNC and WP:PAIC with regard to punctuation and <ref>s? It is burdensome having to follow up and correct all those misplaced periods. Thank you! Hertz1888 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift acknowledgement. I also notice you are doing unnecessarily extra work creating duplicate references. In a few moments I will demonstrate an easier way, on one set of duplicates, and leave it for you to redo the others if you wish. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Six collapsed into one (#160, a through f). Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. No trouble, just teamwork. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note red error messages in Notes section. Your citations for each page need at least one <ref name=example>text of citation</ref> to be valid. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Someone expert in the use of Harvard referencing has come along and converted all the multiple "karsh" citations to this evidently superior system. The syntax for it can be found at Template:Harvard citation no brackets (harvnb). Hertz1888 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on SS Values

As you were the original contributor of the material which comprised this article, this is to notify you of this AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideology of the SS. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zweites Buch - War Predictions

Hi A.S. Brown,

This may be going way back, but I wanted to ask you about an edit you made back in 2005 to the Mein Kampf article. You added that Hitler suggested in its sequel Zweites Buch how a war would erupt between a German-British alliance and the United States around 1980. This claim has later been replicated on a number of other articles, but from what I can gather doesn't appear anywhere in the text of Zweites Buch. I'm not contending that Nazi Germany was indeed planning for a future war against the United States even before declaring war on that country in December 1941 (for which there is a large body of convincing evidence available to historians), but specifically your claim in regards to this document. Could you elaborate what passage made you make that interpretation, or what historian did so in one of his works?

Thanks for your time.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! A prominent historian like Hillgruber presumably wouldn't make an assertion like that without good grounds, but unfortunately I don't have a German-language copy of Zweites Buch readily available. Based on the page number you provided, he appears to be referencing either the chapter "Hopelessness of an Economic Solution" or "Nececessity for an Active Foreign Policy", neither of which seem to contain the cited information - unless the rough English version is missing vital pieces, which seems exceptionally sloppy. I hope you can find those other historians, because I can't confirm it until I have the german one at least.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Resistance

I see that you were active on German resistance article, and I know that you edits usually are detailed. Perhaps you have some estimates of numbers ? Right now they have been ridiculously inflated. Your comments are welcomed[5] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Prestige

Please be sure to remember to cite sources when you add information about the film. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Thank you for making certain that the biography of Erich von Manstein remains a model of neutrality with scholarly criticism described accurately in the face of Manstein's own revisionist efforts. Beifall! Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, please weigh in on the talk page with your opinion about the points that Knispel is bringing up there. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my thanks as well. Far too many wiki articles suffer from "Wehrmacht myth" unfortunately and it's good to see somebody writing a solid information based on modern research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Wehrmacht myth-article needed

Please look here, feel free to copy and expand to create an article on this if you want: [6] Comments welcomed. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rundstedt

On your edits to this article: please don't waste your time editing the article beyond the end of the French campaign, because I am about to rewrite the rest of it. On Beck: That's not my recollection, but I will check my references tonight. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beck

Thanks for taking the time to explain fully your position on Beck. You are of course right about his political evolution, which followed the same course as that of many others, including Stauffenberg. But I didn't say he had always been an opponent of the regime, I said he was in February 1938. My main source on this is Fest's book on the German resistance. (I have Mommsen's book but I haven't read it yet - obviously I should.) Fest traces Beck's course towards opposition back to Blomberg's imposition of the oath to Hitler on the Army in the wake of the Roehm purge, and then to the "Hossbach" conference of November 1937, at which Hitler revealed his full imperialist intentions to the Army leadership. The final straw was the Blomberg-Fritsch affair and Brauchitsch's supine behavior during it. So, by the time the Sudetenland crisis blew up, Beck was committed to resistance to Hitler's policies. You are right that this did not, in his mind, necessarily mean the removal of Hitler from power (Fest 69). So in 1938 he was certainly an "active opponent" of Hitler's plans, and also of other aspects of the regime, such as the power of the SS. Whether that means he was or was not an "active opponent of the regime" per se seems to me to be a matter of semantics, but I'm happy to leave the phrase out.

I think, though, that it is not correct to argue that because an officer or official stayed at their post and worked for the regime, that means they cannot also have been an active oppositionist. Oster, for example, was a committed oppositionist from 1934, but stayed at his post, firstly because that was the safest place to be, and secondly because it was the best place from which to work effectively against the regime. The paradox of the Nazi regime was that the only relatively safe place to organise resistance was inside the state apparatus itself, since all civil society opposition had been destroyed and the masses were enthusiastic supporters of the regime.

You are clearly a well-informed and constructive editor, so I would welcome your comments on other aspects of the Rundstedt article. I notice also that you have been active on the German resistance article. I wrote most of that article, under another name, some years ago [7], and I see that it has survived reasonably well, although the Polish nationalists have inevitably been at it. The "historiography" section, at the end, however, is not my work. The article is obviously now under-referenced and needs more work. I might return to it when I have finished with Rundstedt. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beck and Rundstedt

Thanks for your reply. I read most of it - could I gently suggest to you that brevity is the soul of exposition?

I think your points about the German opposition/resistance are generally correct. I wasn't aware of the Prufer case. But comparing that case with the cases of, say, Oster or Hassell or Weiszaecker shows that there was a continuum of opposition/resistance which various officials moved along, back and forth as circumstances changed. Some were opportunists but others, who risked and lost their lives, obviously were not. Each case must I think be treated on its merits.
Many opposition/resistance figures had originally supported Hitler's regime, and were moved to opposition by later events, anywhere between the Roehm purge and Stalingrad. Some did so while continuing to support the regime's war in the east and its anti-Semitism. You've no doubt seen Christian Gerlach's damning chapter on Tresckow, Nebe, Yorck and others in Heer and Naumann's War of Extermination. If I get back to German resistance I will write more about the "ambiguity of opposition."
From what I've read about Rundstedt, I think it is unfair to suggest that his behaviour was influenced by Hitler's largesse. The Prussian Junkers can be accused of many things, but venality is usually not one of them. He lived a very spartan lifestyle and was indifferent to money. He banked Hitler's cheque, but never spent any of it.
My opinion is that Rundstedt's moral failings came from two sources, both to do with his age: (1) his rigid adherence to an obselete conception of soldierly duty and the separation of military life from politics, (2) his increasing remoteness from what was going on around him. He simply chose not to know and not to see, because that was the path of least bother.
It's Dr Carr, actually, but you can call me Adam. :) I stopped editing under my real name when I started working for a politician, but I am about to retire so I will probably revert to my real name soon. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of British diplomatic history

Welcome aboard. This can be a great article with lots of use -- but too few people are reading it. Rjensen (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of the SS

A deletion discussion on an article you created has been started here. -OberRanks (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Erich von Manstein#Perjury:

Much new work has been done at Erich von Manstein, some of it removing your summary of the Smelser and Davies book. I think you would be interested in this discussion: Talk:Erich von Manstein#Perjury:. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erich Raeder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fernando Po (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erich Raeder, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brest and Battle of Dogger Bank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Arab Israeli war, a removed section

A section that you edited extensively (at 05:38, 14 June 2011), was removed by user pluto2012. The deleted section name is "British Diplomacy In Support of the Arabs". I have reacted in the article talk page and notified the offender:

"According to the rules, I have to notify you before claiming in the incident board, that your deletion of the section "British diplomacy in support of the Arabs" in "1948 Arab–Israeli War" at 30 May 2013, is a vandalism in my opinion.

I have asked you few times to show evidence to your claim that this section is biased, but your responses have not indicated any error or biased point there. (except Benni Morris sentences , that could have been amended to the section instead of deleting it.) "

It might be interesting to you. Ykantor (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your message in my talk page. It is better to join efforts in keeping Wikipedia correct and objective. As an update to my previous message:

I have opened a claim a section was deleted, which is Vandalism and offending NPOV
The deleted section is restored ( as for now)
A lot of useful citations in the article talk page, if you wish to extend the section or to add sources.

As for Karsh, it seems that all his points are accurate. However, I have added parallel citations , in order to avoid the note that the section relays too heavily on Karsh. It was easy to find more sources, since Karsh's points are correct and well known.

Anyway, it is difficult to understand, why contributors who fault Karsh, do not provide even one specific fault or biased representation, although they have been asked few times. regards Ykantor (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will appreciate your intervention in the [8] Dispute_resolution_noticeboard , where I have posted a complain. Ykantor (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be possible for you to contact pluto2012 and try to resolve the deletion of the "british diplomacy in support of the Arabs", a section which was written by yourself. He deleted this section although Wikipedia rule is: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."

In order to resolve the problem, I consider applying for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As a prerequisite, there is a demand for "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem". That is the reason for asking you. thanks.

Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.

NPOV Noticeboard

Dispute resolution noticeboard

help desk

help desk Ykantor (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Dmowski

I've noticed that way back you were one of the major contributors of this article. I am currently expanding it, hopefully towards a GA. Any comments or edits would be very appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20th July Plot

I noticed that the page for the plot basically omits anything about goals and plans of the plotters. Perhaps you would be interested in contributing to that article? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Konrad Adenauer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Halle and John McCloy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your appreciation. I think the Adenauer article, which contains a wealth of information (thanks in large part to you), could be radically improved in an afternoon, for readers, by the addition of more images. Will be happy to help! It'll be easy since the hard work (writing the actual article) is already done. I appreciate all you've done for it! -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War I reparations

Hi,

You commented on the above article's talkpage that "John Kenneth Galbraith, (who was a friend and an admirer of Keynes) writing in his memories in 1986 stated in retrospect Keynes was wrong and Mantoux was right.". I have been doing a bit of digging around and have not been able to find anything online, do you have a quote or two (along with a book ref) that could be used to further enhance the article in this regard?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adenauer and SS

Seems he nurtured SS officers in secret to become a fighting force[9]. At least that is my initial impression.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

heyy I Love u...

173.73.163.55 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Chretien

Hi, A.S. Brown. I saw that over the past year you have been doing a number of edits at Jean Chretien. While I want to thank you for your tireless efforts, the article is now far above the size generally considered to be comfortable for navigation. Do you have any interest in splitting out some of the content or otherwise reducing the length of the article? To give you some context, the Chretien article, at over 220,000 bytes, is now larger than the article on World War II and Franklin D. Roosevelt, and about twice the size of the article on Stephen Harper. Colipon+(Talk) 19:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kingdom of Heaven (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !

Thank you for the barnstar! Good luck with studying and personal life! --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yellow Peril, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Terror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Remilitarization of the Rhineland page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Remilitarization of the Rhineland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanctions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Måns

Please take a look at the article Måns Zelmerlöw. For any improvements, any edit is welcomed :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Houston Stewart Chamberlain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese civilization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

Browse the new WikiProject page
Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian von Ehrenfels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi, A.S. Brown,

I just wanted to thank you for your steady, thorough improvements on Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an article I've long had on my watchlist but have thought I'd never have time to improve myself. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to German National People's Party may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

fighting<ref>E. Kolb, ''The Weimar Republic'', 2nd ed. (New York: Rutledge, 2005), pp. 224–5</ref>). The immediate cause of the in-fighting was an article entitled "On Monarchism" by Walter Lambach,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:A.S. Brown/Suez crisis

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 User:A.S. Brown/Suez crisis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from telegraph.co.uk/culture/3656288/What-we-failed-to-learn-from-Suez.html. 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 or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to 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 or image 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JustBerry (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved --JustBerry (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:A.S. Brown/Remilitarization of the Rhineland

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 User:A.S. Brown/Remilitarization of the Rhineland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://ijkm.nl/Remilitarization_of_the_Rhineland. 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 or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to 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 or image 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JustBerry (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved as per Earwig's comment below. --JustBerry (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-like edits to your userpage

What is going on here? — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

A.S. Brown (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I rather foolishly wrote some personal things on userpage, which judging from the view statistics nobody ever reads. I learned my lesson, and will never do that again. I was not aware that you can delete those things, so I tried my best to bury my mistakes as it were. Given that this was my userpage, and not an article-I thought I was acting within my rights. I was not aware that one could delete things, and if I was, I would have done so that way. I wished user Mike V had written to me first if he had some concerns rather imposing an indefinite block. I always tried my best to be co-operative, and to be useful. It seems unfair that another user can around calling me a "Stalinist" and can take off a neutrality tag I have added to a page without so much as leaving an edit summary as to why, and suffer no sanctions while I have been blocked indefinitely. -A.S. Brown (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked your account. Indefinite was only so that we could sort out what was going on. It appeared to me as if your account might have been compromised. If you wish for something in your userspace to be deleted, feel free to talk to an admin (via email if you wish to hold a more private conversation) and you can discuss your concerns. Mike V • Talk 00:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your two userspace articles

Hi, A.S. Brown. After discussion with a couple other admins, we've decided that User:A.S. Brown/Suez crisis and User:A.S. Brown/Remilitarization of the Rhineland were incorrectly tagged as copyright violations, and they have been restored. Please feel free to continue working on them. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. — Earwig ^talk 00:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Noted.

Resolved --JustBerry (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[smith-1] Smith, John. Introduction to Politics, page 30. Cite error: The named reference "smith" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[1]