User talk:Moagim

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Nobility

I noticed that you restored Talk:Duke of Antin, it must have automatically added itself to my watchlist when I created the Talk page. I guess that means you know something about French nobility. I have an outstanding question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Royalty_and_Nobility#Marie_Joseph_Anatole_Elie which I believe is misnamed. No one has responded, would you mind taking a quick look? It seems it is actually Joseph de Caraman-Chimay the younger. If you don't have time, no worries, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know how to help you there. Moagim (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Howe and General Howe

Sorry that I was not clear enough in explaining my changes to Battle of Long Island and Battle of Fort Washington. Both were decisive victories for General William Howe. Removing the "decisive" from the summary infobox did not appear justified by citing the reference in a book about Admiral Richard Howe. The reference on page 61 refers to the overall war in retrospect, not the individual battles at the time. What do you think? Thanks. Zeete (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the reference says "the campaign at New York in 1776 had not been a decisive victory for the British". I think that for a battle be describe as decisive it should have a clearly impact on the outcome of the war, but there isn't a consensus on this subject. Moagim (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the delay.) Decisive can be used in two ways: 1) describing the outcome of an individual battle; 2) describing the importance of a battle in the outcome of the war. These two articles deal with particular battles. The article on the New York and New Jersey campaign deals with the overall outcome. The reference on page 61 does not deal with these particular battles but with the campaign at New York. This reference does not state that either battle was not decisively won by the British. These battles were decisively won by General Howe but were not decisive in the overall war. Also review the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. What do you think? Thanks. Zeete (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, that the philosophers don't listen to me, but discuss vocabulary is always tricky, as each person gives each word a different meaning. I think we should keep those adjectives to battles like Yorktown, but you contributed much more than I did in those articles, so It's up to you to decide. Moagim (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for resolving the whole citation needed conflict on this page. :D Qbgeekjtw (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aristotelianism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hume, Brentano and Trendelenburg (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) 11:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peninsular War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ferrol and Invasion of Portugal (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) 11:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Peninsular War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Leon, Basque, Gerona, Robinson, Santarem, Galicia, Levante, Bessieres, Almeida and Victor

British Bread Riots (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Falmouth, Tyne, Ashton, Charles Wilson and Wearmouth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Pasting

Many of your recent edits are copy pastes. Such as your additions to the Peninsular War and your new article "British Bread Riots". This is against wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste. While copy pasting can be done with certain public domain works, it is not done to use huge chunks of books and other sources in the place of "writing the articles in your own words and citing the sources of the article". Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't wish to cause any harm.Moagim (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. You weren't aware is all. Regards. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peninsular War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Talavera (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, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE

Hello, Moagim. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Peninsular War at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! —Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject banner tags

Could we get you to read over WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN before removing anymore WikiProject banners.

, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article

Moxy (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you point to me where WP:WPFC says that those specifically articles are within their scope? Moagim (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain better then the MOS (policy on the matter). Its not up to you or me or anyone to tell the members of a project that an article they are interested in watching over is not allowed. If them members of a project would like to watch over the article for what ever reason and/or feel they can contribute in any way be it small or large they may do so without question. No one cant tell them to go away - in fact the more watching and helping articles the better. Please discuss the orphaning of article from projects and thus the removal of articles from projects watches-lists with the projects and there members. Moxy (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Riot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Falmouth, Tyne, Ashton, Charles Wilson and Wearmouth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off for a sec

Could pls hold off in changing the POV of battles till a talk on the matter is over - Pls see Talk:Battle of Lake Erie#merican victory: Decisive or not?.Moxy (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Not sure you understand what your doing - pls provide references for your changes.Moxy (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability to understand how this works? Moagim (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand whats going on - infoboxes dont need sources if the info is in the article already - I will move the ref to the box so you can see them I guess.Moxy (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's not about the outcome, it's about the decisiveness. Moagim (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits and I think I understand what your saying now pls see my last post at Talk:Battle of Lake Erie#American victory: Decisive or not? SORRY I think i get it now.Moxy (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Franc-archer

Hi, I'm GuinanDrib555. Moagim, thanks for creating Franc-archer!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references to your page! It also needs more content, :)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. —Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why you put a copy edit template on the article Charles IV of Spain?

Hello - I rewrote a lot of the article Charles IV of Spain,removing a lot of the antiquated language and so forth and wonder why you have put a template "may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it." Instead of slapping that notice on it, why don't you just edit it where you see problems? Or leave a message on the talk page identifying where the problems are. I don't see any and so I am taking that template off, please don't put it back on without specifically identifying an areas that you think needs work. Thanks Smeat75 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Charles IV of Spain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carlos and Murat

The Second of May 1808 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carlos and Murat

Duke of Franconia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John II

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdications of Bayonne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos (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) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jean-Baptiste Jourdan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Fleurus

Mutiny of Aranjuez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carlos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of copyright material removed

Your addition to Battle of Barrosa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Diff of Battle of Barrosa. The material was added on April 7, 2013. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese provinces; renaming discussion

Hello - I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion on the proposed renaming of Cà Mau and/or An Giang Province. This is to let you know that a discussion on a number of similar proposed moves is taking place at Talk:Bac Ninh Province. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks did lose against the Italians.AnnalesSchool (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Moagim, it actually was an Italian victory. The Italians went on to occupy most of the country. And Greece did formally surrender to the Italians. The bulk of the Greek army was worn down fighting the Italians, which allowed the German to come in almost unopposed because the Greeks had exhausted themselves. They would have been far better off surrendering to the Italians sooner than allow the Germans in, because the Germans were brutal masters who bankrupted and starved the entire country. Under Italian occupation instead, they would have been far better treated, which they were in the zones controlled by the Italians. 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)AnnalesSchool (talk)