User talk:Battlefield

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Sir John Harvey

I was not sure what the correct name for John Harvey should be. There was an entry for John Harvey (Colonel) and John Harvey (governor). I think he his notable for both. So I chose Sir John Harvey. You are welcome to change it. --YUL89YYZ 21:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1812 battle names

The names used on my new 1812 stubs are those used on the List of battles 1801-1900. If they are wrong, feel free to correct them (and move pages if necessary). Roy Al Blue 02:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to sign

I noticed you left an edit on my talk page telling me to use the Warbox. That will not be a problem, but I did notice that you failed to sign your edit. To sign edits, type four tildes after them. Thanks. Roy Al Blue 13:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC) that 8 december htere was noone alive and robby was the only one to still be alive and he lost the war[reply]

Modern Warfare

Like others, I've noticed that in Modern Warfare the introductions are far too brief, and without historical context. When I've tried to rectify this, you have simply deleted what I have written. I know that you have said that this article is on modern warfare, and not WW1 and WW2, but modern history (and therefore modern warfare) does encompass WW1 and WW2. Now, I can understand that you want to provide a stable chronological order (hence separate industrial and modern warfare articles) but you can not separate total war from its historical context, especially since it has only ever happened in WW1 and WW2 - Never after.

Additionally, whilst I somewhat disagreed with the inclusion of 'total war' in the first place, since it is not a type of warfare like say, biological warfare or Naval warfare, I decided it wasn't too much of a problem. However, what is a problem is that your definition is generalised, slightly inaccurate and has the wrong focus. For one, total war has not been practiced for centuries, it is a relatively new development in warfare (and if it had been practiced for centuries, why did you include it in modern warfare?). Secondly, your explanation of it "Total war is a 20th century term to describe a war in which countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war" is pretty simplistic. One of the most important aims of every war is to destroy your enemy's ability to fight, and so you're not really providing any real extra information there. Finally, your focus on civilian infrastructure, etc. becoming targets does not really provide the whole picture; the real uniqueness of total war comes from the massive mobilisation of the home front, thereby involving nations' societies in a major way, and not just their military forces. Opiniastrous 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell do you keep deleting the stuff I write? I mean, I wrote good stuff on the naval warfare intro (I added things like cruisers, AWDs and sub-surface/surface/air fighting) and I added a lot to the nuclear war intro. (including current tactical and strategic usage and modern-day nuclear threats like dirty-bombs). On total war, I've just deleted it though. Frankly, it didn't really belong in the first place.

Naval Warfare

Much the same complaint here. For one, the intro. is simplistic. It doesn't go into the various zones of naval warfare (sub-surface, surface and air) and some of the bassic details of those, ignores some types of important naval vessels (like the cruiser), and finally, it fails to mention capabilities other than attack capabilities. Even though these are introductions, surely they shouldn't just be paid off and given minimal attention to detail. They should be able to provide the reader with a good introduction to the topic so they know what they are going into before they actually click that link. Sorry to get off on the wrong foot here, but this is what I feel about the aforementioned. Opiniastrous 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Education in Canada

Please do not remove comments from talk pages. As for the address format, Canada does go after the postal code. See reply address given by Canada Post. Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada UTSRelativity (Talk) 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CanEd

I noticed that you've been placing these on article pages. They should be going on the talk pages. ([1]) Thanks. -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay Battlefield 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Park High School

Regarding your statement "Trust Me It Is Closed", that's not good enough. I'm not question the facts, I'm pointing out your lack references/sources, and therefore the lack of demonstrated verifiability. If we regularly accept such unsourced articles, and don't seek sources, then its *very* easy for somebody other than you, to slip something in that's not accurate. By providing a simple link, you allow somebody to verify something quickly, and move on. According to WP:Verifiability "Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". In other words, the mere fact the statement is true, isn't good enough. --Rob 15:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL. I made the assumption that you were going to write more than one single fact (the school's closed), and would need to cite a source. If the only thing you have to say is the school is closed, then the article will need to be deleted. It is patently absurd to create an article with one sentence. Also, you keep missing the point, that I never contested the fact. You don't seem to understand what verifiability means. If this article isn't expanded and sourced, I will, for the first time ever, nominate a school article for deletion. This has to be one of the worst school articles I've ever seen, and I don't know why you thought to make it. --Rob 15:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

I don't understand this category. Do you want to include categories for every opinion one can have? If not, what makes this special? --Yooden

I don't think this category belongs on Martin Luther and the Jews. Perhaps on Martin Luther, but not on the former, which is about anti-Semitism proper. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your catagorization of Martin Luther King, Jr. into the anti-semetic people catagory. I think you may have meant to add it to the Martin Luther article. Hansnesse 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for nominating the category for deletion. I was mistaken about its purpose; I have withdrawn the nomination now. However, the deletion notice states: "please do not ... remove this notice while the discussion is in progress"; this is why I had reverted your removal. Regards, Mike Rosoft 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I signed the post about a minute after posting it. We can all slip up.

I amn't objecting to the likes of Bobby Fisher being included in such a category, but rather to people such as Isaac Feffer or Romauld Spasowski who either opposed or were victims of anti-Semitism. Such people cannot logically be described as anti-Semitic people. So please don't put them in that category. Palmiro | Talk 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, sorry if I was a bit narky. Palmiro | Talk 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, only the apparent imbecility of this 'dialog' let me look at other pages where the other half of the discussion might take place. You should have pointed that out. --Yooden

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Hi there, I reverted your post on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as there is no evidence for such a claim. He is against the existence of Israel as a state. There are several countries in the world that do not recognize Israel as a country. At least for the case of Ahmadinejad and Iran, it has nothing to do with "Jewish people", as Iran is hosting the biggest Jewish community in the middle east. Even in such a fundamentalist regime in Iran, Jewish community is recognized in Iran and Jewish people are represented in the parliament. Is there a statement by Ahmadinejad which clearly indicates anti-semitism ? (I may be unaware of ...) Thanks.User:MITSO

Bad Cite

the Citation you have provided says the opposite of your assertion. Can you please cite a reputable source describing the man as an Anti-Semite. I'd be surprised if there was not one. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Please do not remove the tag. If you disagree with it then pleas go to deletion and vote to keep. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Good work on War of 1812 categorization, but keep in mind capitalization standards. In "Category:War of 1812 Forts", forts should not be capitalized, since it's not a proper noun. Same goes with "Category:Naval Battles of the War of 1812", where battles should not be capitalized. You might want to list these as candidates for "speedy rename". --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 29

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Don't post anymore of your anti-Semitic crap on my talk page Battlefield 10:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that was a response I wasn't expecting. Since I am not recieveing any cooperation from you I'll have to inform several people. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More like your anti-Semitic rant Citation got you no where and now your pissed off. Cordially Battlefield 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, can you restate that in a civil tone so I can start comprihending? Also please define "Anti-Semitic". You seem to call wikipeida templates Anti-Semitic and that kind of confuses me. Also are you declaring me Anti-Semitic? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion tags during an active debate is considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Any category may be nominated for deletion by any editor, and during the time it is up for deletion, the tag must stay in place. That is per official Wikipedia policy, and it will be enforced. If you disagree with the deletion, you may voice your reasons in a civil manner on the deltion page, but do not remove the tag. -- Essjay · Talk 14:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RVs

Hi. Which rule, where? If you give me a link, I'll gladly accept it's against the rules. Fir e Fox 16:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no rule so I will continue to revert user talk pages when necessary. Fir e Fox 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, thats for deletion, not reversion. Fir e Fox 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note about your comments

Please remember to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Calling someone a "zero" (from User:Essjay's talk page) does not really mesh well with these rules. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a zero+1 still isn't quite being civil. If you disagree with CoolCat on something, try asking him nicely to stop doing whatever he's doing. If he responds, read his reasoning behind his actions. Some things are done for a reason, in accordance with policy. Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat

I see Cool Cat is sucking up to you. Good for him, he seems like the type. Would u please ask this zero to stop posting spam on my User Talk page, I told him to stop but he won't. I notice he deleted my comments on his Talk Page, which is what you placed a warning on my User Talk page about, I assume you will post the same comment on his User Talk page, so I know you are unbiased in your position. Cordially Battlefield 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suck up to admins, I knew Essjay long before you registered your account (which was 28 November 2005). Essjay was on a long wiki break and hence I welcomed him back. Wikipedia is not only about you.

Also I am not a Japanese fighter aircraft (Zero)

I did not remove your comment, look harder [2]. I merely moved it around a bit so it follows a more logical flow. You on the otherhand removed lots of content from my user talk page. This is also considered vandalism, however I am treating it like an honest mistake. Please be a bit more careful with your edits. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U have your nose so far up his A$$ u look like Pinnochio.

My comments on this page, as evidenced above, were about removing deletion tags, not removing talk page messages. Since numerous editors have warned you to avoid personal attacks and remain civil but you have not done so, I'm blocking you for 24 hours for personal attacks and an additional 24 hours for wikistalking Cool Cat. If you choose to continue this behavior when the block expires, we'll increase the blocks until you learn how to cooperate with other contributors and abide by site policy. -- Essjay · Talk 20:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While reviewing several talk pages, I also encounted some comments (as recent as late December 2005) made by User:Battlefield which were quite uncivil and unwarranted. Please be aware that if this behavioural pattern continues, your next block will be for a significantly longer period of time. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on stub templates

It's not a copyright issue; Jamesday has asked us to remove decorative images because they cause too much server load. —Kirill Lok s hin 20:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subsidized housing

Thanks for all your contributions in subsidized housing. I just ran across the page, created in December 2005. As it happens, others began organizing this information under the article affordable housing. I provided a link between the articles, but don't really see a clear difference between the content of they articles as the exist now. The two are not the same subject but there's not enough content to justify the current split. Consider truncating the entry in subsidized housing since the new article is far less developed than affordable housing. Thanks. Castellanet 01:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be defensive, I won't propose any merger banner. The content needs to be improved, period. I was merely suggesting coordination of the content. Sorry it didn't work out. Castellanet 06:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Featherston.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Stephane Charette 09:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World Wide Kennel Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World Wide Kennel Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Wide Kennel Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — anndelion ❋ 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Non-profit housing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Non-profit housing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-profit housing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Featherston Drive Public School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Featherston Drive Public School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherston Drive Public School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]