User talk:Icemanwcs

This user may have left Wikipedia. Icemanwcs has not edited Wikipedia since 24 February 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Icemanwcs, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Icemanwcs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms[edit]

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Way2veers 02:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms[edit]

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 The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms 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. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. 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 that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 02:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montagnard (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) 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Apprasing Military Small Arms[edit]

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 Apprasing Military Small Arms 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. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. 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 that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Valenciano (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Apprasing Military Small Arms, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1st Cavalry Division (United States)[edit]

Hi. With reference to this edit, what did you mean by "My division"? If you were present or have any affiliation with the subjct of the article, please read WP:COI. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition 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 article 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. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Valmataro (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jeff G.. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), 1st Air Cavalry Division (United States)[edit]

The article Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), 1st Air Cavalry Division (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (Robert C. Ankony allegedly was a member of this Company). Uncategorized. Orphan. Author has been caught plagiarizing the work of Robert C. Ankony before.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam[edit]

The article Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (Robert C. Ankony allegedly was a member of one of the units that fought this battle). Author has been caught plagiarizing the work of Robert C. Ankony before.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dong Re Lao Mountain[edit]

The article Dong Re Lao Mountain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (Robert C. Ankony allegedly was in a battle on this mountain). Author has been caught plagiarizing the work of Robert C. Ankony before.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Icemanwcs. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

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.

1st Cavalry Division (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chinooks and Central Highlands

Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Laotian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi, I'm Sarah. First of all thanks for all your contributions. I just wanted to remind you to use edit summaries when editing as it helps other editors know what you did. This edit for example looked like section blanking to me and if I hadn't looked at the talk page and seen the previous discussion regarding that section I may have reverted your edit as an unexplained removal of sourced content. In that case a simple note like "see talk page" would help other editors know its a legitimate edit. Thanks. Regards Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah, I will comply. I am still learning the process and will try to remember to cite my edits so others can better judge them. I do enjoy editing and revising Wikipedia pages that are in my areas of expertise. All the best, Icemanwcs (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple listings[edit]

When a term is linked in an article, we don't link it again as a "see also". When a term is used as a source, we don't list it as a "further reading". This is especially true when it's your own book, since that starts to look promotional. I've removed these duplications and will continue to remove them. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vietnam War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Main (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) 00:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Company F, 425th Infantry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T-10 (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) 10:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the error. I believe I fixed the problem. Bob

Recent Additions[edit]

While it's great that you're making some additions to Vietnam War articles, it might be better if you used reliable secondary sources instead of material that you wrote. Using your own publications can be problematic in the Wikipedia environment. If you have any questions about sourcing, the folks at WikiProject Military History are quite helpful. Feel free to drop by either my talk page or MilHist's main talk page if you have any questions. Thanks! Intothat darkness 15:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. I try to use primary sources whenever possible as I'm more confident of its accuracy but I certainly understand your concern and will do my best to cite reliable secondary sources. All the best, Icemanwcs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.253.90 (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but Wiki tends to frown on primary sources, especially when you're the author. Intothat darkness 13:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the challenges with Wikipedia is that it's really a tertiary source as an encyclopedia. Those sorts of articles are created using reliable secondary sources. When I was going through the Signal Hill article I found at least one misquote of a source (one of the quotations to Tolson's airmobility study was wrong, even though you had it in quotations marks indicating that it was a direct quote), and you're not providing page numbers. Wikipedia style prefers page numbers with citations, so that other researchers and readers can go back and look at the original source (either to verify or to learn something further about the subject). You also can't make claims about an operation or mission that aren't found in a reliable secondary source. Vietnam is one of my "real life" subject areas, and I feel the coverage here is very weak. To correct that we need to build robust, well-sourced articles...and that takes secondary sources here. It's not my preferred style of writing, either, but it's what we must work with when we contribute here. Intothat darkness 19:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, Thanks for your observation and concerns they will be corrected. Some of the work I did on that page was when I was out-of-state and did not have access to all my sources, I apologize for the mistake(s) and page numbers will be added. I appreciate your Vietnam service. It's vital we get history right and get it out there, Icemanwcsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.253.90 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need your attention re your article[edit]

I've suggested deletion of Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam) and have also raised the question of the copyright for this material at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Complicated issue with possible user-donated material. Your input is invited for both these discussions. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mangoe and Intothatdarkness, I left a message on the user talk page regarding your concerns on the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam but do not see my reply posted so I am rewriting it. The Battle of Signal Hill is very notable and Lurps was cited because ten years of dedicated research went into both editions. The work is authoritative and is recognized by the U.S. Army Center for Military History, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Army Ranger School, Fort Benning, Georgia. The Battle of Signal Hill webpage is a starting point and I plan to add new detail, secondary sources, and photos, unfortunately it all takes time, I'm only one person. Delete the work if you must, but please be aware you are throwing away relevant history and the sacrifice of many men who gave their lives to secured a remote mountaintop so thousands of other men could have vital radio communication in the most formidable enemy held territory in South Vietnam, A Shau Valley. Again, thank you very much, your concerns will be addressed if given time, Icemanwcs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.253.90 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above for some thoughts on this. It's not a matter necessarily of deleting the article but fixing it so that it meets Wikipedia standards. Intothat darkness 19:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems here which you need to understand:

the copyright issue: We don't have a good way of verifying your identity, so just posting text on an article talk page is probably not going to be good enough an indication that you've given us permission to republish material from elsewhere that you have written. You'll most likely need to go through the WP:OTRS procedures for us to be assured that you are who you say you are and so forth. Also, I'm not a copyright specialist, but I personally would have doubts about us republishing material which was already published under someone else's copyright. We would need confidence that rights have reverted to you.

the original research issue: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Assuming your books and articles were recognized as "reliable", they could be used in synthesis with other works as long as they are not used to draw novel conclusions (i.e., you could use them to ratify each other). But we're not going to accept an article which is based on analysis of primary sources. It's not that we think there's something wrong with that sort of work overall; it's just not what we do.

The name of the article is an example of how this works. I cannot find anyone else calling this the "Battle of Signal Hill". I can see where Signal Hill comes into this, but I get the impression that you've taken your notion of this as a battle unto itself and used it to give this unit-of-battle a name. An you're welcome to do that elsewhere, but until you get everyone else using the same name for the same section of the conflict, we cannot accept the name. We cannot be put in the position of advocating that this part of the war be called by a name you've assigned it. If you can find others using the same name for the same place-and-time in the war, then we would be able to say, "OK, there's this battle with this name." But until then, there's going to be a problem, and you're going to find yourself in a lot of conflict with other editors who may hold you to these rules. Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe and Intothedarkness, there are a number of issues you raise. Please be assured if given time all concerns will be addressed. The battle of Signal Hill is discussed among other sources on p. 146 of Anatomy of a Division: The 1st Cav in Vietnam, Shelby L. Stanton, Presidio Press, Novato, Ca (1987); "No Peace in the Valley," (cover story), Vietnam magazine, Oct. 2008, 26--31; and LRRP Company Command: The Cav's LRP/Rangers in Vietnam, 1968--69, pps. 3--5, Kregg P.J. Jorgenson, Ballintine Books (2000). Regarding copyright concerns, my writings in Vietnam magazine have reverted once they were published and the partial citing of the two editions Lurps have been encouraged by my publisher, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. As to assuring you who I am I would be happy to call, have you call me, or for me to forward a letterhead, however, I understand that really assures nothing, There is, however, a simple way to resolve this issue and that is to call Grosse Ile Police Department, (734) 676-7100, Chief Joseph Porcarelli or Deputy Chief John Szczepaniak, who can assure my identity. Your concerns of primary sources are also valid, but again please be advised what I posted is a starting point, I need to go back and cite secondary sources. They're in my bibliography but are not listed individually as footnotes, so please allow time so I can include more specifics, add photos, and make this webpage proudly serve historians and Wikipedia alike, Icemanwcs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.253.90 (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanton book you mentioned is good, as is his book on Rangers in Vietnam (which would be considered a reliable source for this article per Wikipedia's standards). Jorgensen's book is also good, but you go back to issues with primary source/memoir things. Wikipedia tends to prefer sources like Stanton, which are built on primary and secondary sources. It's frustrating, I know (I prefer original research), but it's how the place works. Also, when you cite sources you need to include page numbers. At the risk of appearing immodest, I'd refer you to Battle of FSB Mary Ann for an example of how this is done. I spent some time overhauling that article to bring it closer to standards. It's not perfect by any means, but it gives you a decent example. Any of the MilHist A class articles are also great examples. As an aside, I'm not worried about verifying your identity. My concern is making sure Vietnam articles comply with Wikipedia standards. Intothat darkness 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness and Mangoe, I appreciate Wikipedia's idea not to delete the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page, but to merge it with the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page. There were other concerns expressed about citing secondary sources and visiting the Battle of FSB Mary Ann page, which is certainly well-written and serves as a great example of the standard that Wikipedia seeks. It is my goal to meet all requests and to make my work of similar standard. However, I do need time and I think the decision to merge the two pages will not serve military historians and veterans adequately because the Battle of Signal Hill is a notable battle in and of itself, especially among 1st Cav Vietnam veterans, LRPs, and Army Rangers (there are additional sources I can cite that refer to that mountaintop as Signal Hill). So my thought is melding it with Company E would work but it won't be as searchable and the length of the Battle of Signal Hill page would overwhelm the brief length of the battles presented on the Company E page. Company E needs more development as they fought to the end of the war and they participated in many other battles. However, because of the number those operations and battles, they are only presented in brief on the Company E page. Can Wikipedia reconsider its decision, thanks Icemanwcs (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, several days ago I revised the Company E in film section to make it less opinionated but he facts are true...I can source key issues. Regarding merging the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page with the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page, I raised issues above why the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page would best stand alone. And on further thinking I was planning on posting several photos into the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page. Two choppers crashed on top of that mountaintop because of the altitude strain on engine and rotor lift performance. One, injured two men on insertion, the other severely injured/ killed several men...I have photos of that and other dramatic scenes. Again, to post that detail in the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page would be inappropriate as that page addresses many operations and battles but only in brief. Please reconsider merging both pages and please let me have one week to address the editorial concerns you addressed. Afterward I will begin plugging in photos to both pages. Thanks, (please note, I didn't see the comments I wrote last night on another talk page so I'm plugging it in both places, Icemanwcs (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and its Impact on Police concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and its Impact on Pollce, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HasteurBot, I received your message about my "Community Alienation and its Impact on Police" page. But it cannot be found on Wikipedia when Goggled. Abstracts of the article, however, show with the National Criminal Justice Reference Service and The Police Chief journal. Would you like me to repost it? Icemanwcs (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness and Mangoe, I appreciate Wikipedia's idea not to delete the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page, but to merge it with the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page. There were other concerns expressed about citing secondary sources and visiting the Battle of FSB Mary Ann page, which is certainly well-written and serves as a great example of the standard that Wikipedia seeks. It is my goal to meet all requests and to make my work of similar standard. However, I do need time and I think the decision to merge the two pages will not serve military historians and veterans adequately because the Battle of Signal Hill is a notable battle in and of itself, especially among 1st Cav Vietnam veterans, LRPs, and Army Rangers (there are additional sources I can cite that refer to that mountaintop as Signal Hill). So my thought is melding it with Company E would work but it won't be as searchable and the length of the Battle of Signal Hill page would overwhelm the brief length of the battles presented on the Company E page. Company E needs more development as they fought to the end of the war and they participated in many other battles. However, because of the number those operations and battles, they are only presented in brief on the Company E page. Can Wikipedia reconsider its decision, thanks Icemanwcs (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, several days ago I revised the Company E in film section to make it less opinionated but he facts are true...I can source key issues. Regarding merging the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page with the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page, I raised issues above why the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page would best stand alone. And on further thinking I was planning on posting several photos into the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page. Two choppers crashed on top of that mountaintop because of the altitude strain on engine and rotor lift performance. One, injured two men on insertion, the other severely injured/ killed several men...I have photos of that and other dramatic scenes. Again, to post that detail in the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page would be inappropriate as that page addresses many operations and battles but only in brief. Please reconsider merging both pages and please let me have one week to address the editorial concerns you addressed. Afterward I will begin plugging in photos to both pages. Thanks, (please note, I didn't see the comments I wrote last night on another talk page so I'm plugging it in both places, Icemanwcs (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HasteurBot, Thanks, I found the original posting and will edited it soon. Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police is a scholarly posting that I'm certain will help the criminal justice and law enforcement community. Again, thanks for reminding me, I will edit the page soon, Icemanwcs (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join MILHIST[edit]

Hello, Icemanwcs, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anotherclown, Thanks, I'd be happy to join. I'm in and out of town often and spend a lot of time with the military but I'd be pleased to do what I can.Icemanwcs (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and its Impact on Pollce[edit]

Hello Icemanwcs. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Community Alienation and its Impact on Pollce".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and its Impact on Pollce}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commando, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army Rangers (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) 08:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DPL, thanks for letting me know...I fixed the Army Ranger link Icemanwcs (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to War 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Hello BracketBot, thanks for the help Icemanwcs (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Detroit Race Riot (1943) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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. Hello BracketBot, I think I fixed the quote that was previously cited improperly Icemanwcs (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

inevitable.<ref>http://blogs.detroitnews.com/history/1999/02/10/the-1943-detroit-race-riots/</ref>}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police[edit]

Hello Icemanwcs. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Community Alienation and Its Impact on Police}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms[edit]

Hello Icemanwcs. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Service pistol. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Don't spam so many links to an essay which is off-topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet|Binksternet, thanks for your suggestions. I thought I was contributing knowledge worthwhile for the pages but I agree I posted it too much, thanks Icemanwcs (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet|Binksternet, on looking over the sites I think you should have kept the information on the machine gun page and submachine gun page as it was certainly relevant there and you should not have reverted the alphabetizing I did on all the links Icemanwcs (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about messing up your alphabetization. The link you posted so many times is an article about military firearm appraisal. Wikipedia does not currently have a page named Military firearm appraisal, nor a page named Firearm appraisal, and not even a page named Gun collecting, all of which would be appropriate places for that link. The closest I found on Wikipedia was Antique firearms which involves both military and civilian guns.

Specific firearms models such as the M50 Reising do not need this link about general military firearm appraisal. It is off-topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet|Binksternet, thanks for your response. Your suggestions are correct. I will recreate the Military firearm appraisal page when I get the chance as I think it is a popular topic (please see the above--I created it a couple of years ago and then it was automatically deleted for whatever reason). Thanks again for your suggestions and I apologize, also. Icemanwcs (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military firearm appraisal[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Military firearm appraisal, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.robertankony.com/publications/the-financial-assessment-of-military-small-arms/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will donate the material. The text still needs editing, references, and photos.Icemanwcs (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Military firearm appraisal[edit]

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 Military firearm appraisal 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://www.robertankony.com/publications/the-financial-assessment-of-military-small-arms/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. 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 "Click here to 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. MJ94 (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Military firearm appraisal[edit]

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Military firearm appraisal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. MJ94 (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material[edit]

Hi, Icemanwcs. My name is MJ94 and I was the person who tagged Military firearms appraisal as a candidate for speedy deletion. The CSD criterion that the article fell into at the time of its original deletion was CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). Since the article's original deletion, I noticed that you said the article's content was originally posted on your website. If you would like, you may grant us permission to copy the material so that it won't be considered a copyright violation. Keep in mind that all content on Wikipedia should be considered notable, contain reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Your first article may also be useful to you. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask for help from myself or any other Wikipedian. Best, MJ94 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MJ94 and thanks for your response. Yes, I would be happy to donate my work to Wikipedia where the information can serve a much larger audience. I'm confident that the material is not only notable and written from a neutral point of view but that the knowledge offered is original and would serve the vast firearms collecting community. Please note, when I submitted the article for publication I mistakenly said, "Military firearm appraisal" whereas I should have said, Military Firearms Appraisal.

Also, if you decide to keep this posting I will need time to edit, cite references, links, and post photos to bring it up to speed of an encyclopedic / Wikipedia posting. Thanks again, Icemanwcs (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icemanwcs, WP:DONATETEXT will be a good read for you if you'd like to donate any work you have. I appreciate your enthusiasm to help Wikipedia – it may seem challenging at first, but it does get easier. I have one tip for you: When you're in a conversation thread on a talk page such as this one, it's recommended that proper indentation be used in order to keep discussions easier to read. As the aforementioned link states, one can indent their message by adding a leading ":" in their comments. I have edited this thread to use proper indentation so that you may see how it works – feel free to try it out here! If you happen to reply, I have this page on my watchlist, so there is no need to alert me to new messages placed in this discussion. I do apologize for my delay in replying and would like to let you know that I am expecting to be away from Wikipedia (at least regularly) for the next week or two. My replies until I return will likely be few and far between; until then, I wish you the best of luck! MJ94 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MJ94, thanks for the suggestion and I posted the following release as requested on my website page "The Financial Assessment of Military Small Arms" The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Please note, as previously stated, if Wikipedia accepts this work I will need some time to edit, cites references, links, and post photos. I'm confident it will provide unique and notable information. Also note, the first paragraph didn't show on my original submission. All the best, Icemanwcs (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MJ94 I haven't heard if you would like me to repost Military Firearms Appraisal so the information can be shared. I think the site will provide much useful information and would be popular because it is novel allowing other related sites to share links. Thanks Icemanwcs (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Explosive material 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:

employed as [[propellants]]. Included in this group are petroleum products such as [propane]] and [[gasoline]], [[gunpowder]]s both black powder and smokeless, and light [[pyrotechnics]], such

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

http://www.robertankony.com/blog/in-memory-of-machine-guns-part-iii-the-feds-came-knocking

That's an interesting story. But I notice you're adding a lot of links to that same website, and are even putting them at the top of the "external links" sections. Including some talk pages, etc, there are about 128 links to that website on Wikipedia. Before you add more, could you please give the guideline on links a close read? WP:External links. The rule in a nutshell: " External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Sites that should not normally be linked to include: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." "Recognized authority", in Wikipedia-speak, means someone who's been published on the topic by a third party. Is Robert Ankony a recognized authority on all the topics where you've added links?

Links that should be added are those which "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Running&diff=prev&oldid=640769835

For an encyclopedia read by people around the world, do you really think this link is one which will give them the most important information not currently in the article?

If you'd like additional input about adding links, you can post questions at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Thanks for giving this your attention. Rezin (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB On further review I see that Robert Ankony may very well be an expert on several of the relevant topics, per "The U.S. .45 Model 50 And 55 Reising Submachine Gun And Model 60 Semiautomatic Rifle" and Lurps: A Ranger's Diary of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri]. Still, it'd be good if you review the WP:EL to avoid any problems. Thanks for your contributions to WP and, if you're he, your service to the nation. Rezin (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rezin Thank you for the information and your kind words. I will endeavor to make sure my links are relevant and authoritative and if I place any link on top it is only because of alphabetization. Again, thank you, and I am he Icemanwcs (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

seeing that you have admitted you are promoting your own website, blog, books, and a relation of the same name you have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI You also are engaging in promotional spamming of wiki articles and thus have violated another tenant of wiki editing. Wikipedia is not a place to promote or advertise one's personal interests. Further evidence of such behavior will likely result in a block or ban from further editing privileges. This is a official warning and further misuse of Wikipedia editing privileges will result in a report and subsequent investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.70.218 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your self promoting external links to your own website have been deleted. I do not suggest re adding the as this will lead to a WP:ANI complaint and a possible block or ban for abusing editing privileges to promote ones own website after being warned of misusing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to promote one's own interests. Please become familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines about posting in regards to ones own works. Thanks for contributing to the articles and it was for that reason I did not report these great many abuses which you may have made unknowingly. I did not delete all of your references but did in some cases were there were already substantial references. It is best to list another source other than yourself due to potential Conflict of Interest WP:COI. the argument does not hinge on whether they were beneficial but whether they were made appropriately according to wiki guidelines. The guidelines are there to prevent misuse and abuse of Wikipedia by those promoting their own self interests. 208.54.38.255 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, as an academic as you claim on your website, why have you chosen to reference yourself so often when you edit Wikipedia. Surely as the author of many books you must have references to sources other than yourself. It would give your Wikipedia editing more credibility if you used sources other than yourself which draws many concerns over Conflict of Interest WP:COI, Original research WP:OR, Spam WP:SPAM, Book Spam WP:BOOKSPAM, Self Promotion WP:SPAMMER. I hope you thoroughly read the links to policy and become familiar with them to avoid future violations of Wikipedia policy. 208.54.38.255 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 208.54.38.255. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. After many hours spent reviewing your edits and finding a very obvious trend to link to your own website in order to promote your own interests I found it necessary to tag with this warning as well as reporting you as source of spam for your own website. I would also suggest voluntary removal of your spam in order to demonstrate a willingness to follow Wikipedia guidelines concerning self promoting spam. 208.54.38.255 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (talk) I only saw your notification today or I would have addressed your concerns immediately. First, it seems years of my published work and relevant references were removed regardless of their relevance. Many of the deletions are from sites I created, e.g., Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), a unit I spent six years researching and writing the first edition of my book LURPS and another four years writing the second revised edition. I also served with that unit in Vietnam. LURPS was published by an academic press and is an authoritative source. I was invited to Fort Benning, GA, by the US Army Rangers in 2006 to speak about the history of the unit. The other references cited on the page were placed by me. I do add additional sources where appropriate on other pages. The fact that LURPS is my work and I direct readers to my website is to further explain unit history or show battlefield photos that are not appropriate for Wikipedia and this should be recognized as a contribution to history, not as self-serving though it my appear so at a quick glance. Another example is the Wikipedia site Social Alienation. The very first sentence and definition on that page is from my doctoral dissertation which was published in the scientific journal Policing and the Police Chief magazine. And now that reference is gone as if that definition is not authoritative. There are many other sites where I either created or did extensive work and those references are also gone but my work was left intact without any references. This seems to have been done with a broad brush regardless of the individual content. I do agree that my reference on the Wikipedia site Running may have been wrong, however, I thought the article would be of interest and the site was requesting references. Yes, my reference on that page was not authoritative but my view was it's a starting point. As I said I worked for years on Wikipedia and I periodically come back to sites with new or additional information and source material or photos. On January 8 I received the following message ":NB On further review I see that Robert Ankony may very well be an expert on several of the relevant topics, per "The U.S. .45 Model 50 And 55 Reising Submachine Gun And Model 60 Semiautomatic Rifle" and Lurps: A Ranger's Diary of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri]. Still, it'd be good if you review the WP:EL to avoid any problems. Thanks for your contributions to WP and, if you're he, your service to the nation. Rezin (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)". I think it would serve history and Wikipedia users if the references and external links are restored. If they are I would be happy to review the sites and remove any links or references that are not of specific need and you could review my work. Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct copy from the WP:COI page to thoughtfully consider[edit]

Wikipedia's position[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other potential considerations which may apply from Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

Laws against covert advertising[edit]

Shortcuts

United States Federal Trade Commission[edit]

All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. Submitted by 172.56.9.67 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link Spamming to articles you have not added anything to[edit]

After two days of investigation I have noticed a disturbing trend of yours to add yourself as a reference to article sections that you did not contribute any or very little to. Your many edits in articles are often just minor tweaks and then you link spam to your website and other material associated with yourself. This is very self promoting and not within the guidelines of good editing practices on Wikipedia. Please refrain from future link spamming as discussions are already bringing up the subject of being blocked and appears there is plenty of evidence to go that direction. Please use secondary sources and stop creating self promoting link spam. Thanks 172.56.9.123 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (talk) I only saw your notification today or I would have addressed your concerns immediately. First, it seems years of my published work and references were removed regardless of their relevance. Many of the deletions are from sites I created, e.g., Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), a unit I spent six years researching and writing the first edition of my book LURPS and another four years writing the second revised edition. I also served with that unit in Vietnam. LURPS was published by an academic press and is an authoritative source. I was invited to Fort Benning, GA, by the US Army Rangers in 2006 to speak about the history of the unit. The other references cited on the page were placed by me. I do add additional sources where appropriate on other pages. The fact that LURPS is my work and I direct readers to my website is to further explain unit history or show battlefield photos that are not appropriate for Wikipedia and this should be recognized as a contribution to history, not as self-serving though it my appear so at a quick glance. Another example is the Wikipedia site Social Alienation. The very first sentence and definition on that page is from my doctoral dissertation which was published in the scientific journal Policing and the Police Chief magazine. And now that reference is gone as if that definition is not authoritative. There are many other sites where I either created or did extensive work and those references are also gone but my work was left intact without any references. This seems to have been done with a broad brush regardless of the individual content. I do agree that my reference on the Wikipedia site Running may have been wrong, however, I thought the article would be of interest and the site was requesting references. Yes, my reference on that page was not authoritative but my view was it's a starting point. As I said I worked for years on Wikipedia and I periodically come back to sites with new or additional information and source material or photos. On January 8 I received the following message ":NB On further review I see that Robert Ankony may very well be an expert on several of the relevant topics, per "The U.S. .45 Model 50 And 55 Reising Submachine Gun And Model 60 Semiautomatic Rifle" and Lurps: A Ranger's Diary of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri]. Still, it'd be good if you review the WP:EL to avoid any problems. Thanks for your contributions to WP and, if you're he, your service to the nation. Rezin (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)". I think it would serve history and Wikipedia users if the references and external links are restored. If they are I would be happy to review the sites and remove any links or references that are not of specific need and you could review my work. Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references can be of interest on some pages (but in some cases the information is added to pages where it is not the subject and it starts to look like cross-posting it everywhere - we have pages on the relevant battles where it could be appropriate, it is not appropriate on pages about combat training, or certain groups, or the type of weapon people were carrying, etc. - that is all too indirect unless it was especially important).

Regarding the references, the book does not need a working link to an online copy, mentioning the ISBN 0761843736 or ISBN 9780761843733 is enough, people will then be able to find where they want to see the contents of a copy, or whether they want to buy it; for the articles, please link to the original, not to the copy hosted on your website or another website, as the primary point to go. And please be very careful in applying our conflict of interest guideline and Wikimedia's m:Terms of use (you are almost exclusively citing your own work, which looks like promoting your own work, and one might expect you to 'be compensated' in the form of selling more books or more indirect personal gain from that). --^{T C} 06:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T C I read your posting and will comply. I will start by working on the sites that need referencing, e.g., Long Rang Reconnaissance Patrol; Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP); and Proactive Policy so other editors can follow my path. I will be out of town later this week so there will be a lag. I would like to add my intent was to get information out. I cross-referenced many Wikipedia sites as I did writings on my website to each other and to Wikipedia. I was never financially compensated but felt rewarded by getting scholarly accounts of history and knowledge out. Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting late at night but I wanted to thank the Wikipedia community for re-posting the references to many of the military sites. It's been an honor.Icemanwcs (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Link Spam Warning[edit]

Please see WP:SPAMMER for further guidance. It seems you are not acknowledging the warnings given by several editors and additional editors who have deleted your link spam and labeled the deletion link spam. Continued link spamming will likely lead to a blocking of website on Wikipedia and a blocking of your account. The community has developed guidelines to prevent abuse and misuse of Wikipedia and editors are expected to work within those guidelines or face repercussions from the community. I will state again that Wikipedia is not for self promotion. Stating that years of your research have been erased when links to your own website and other material is deleted furthers the case that you are using Wikipedia for self promotion. It may be better to approach editing Wikipedia from a viewpoint of what can I do for Wikipedia and not what can Wikipedia do for me. Your self serving link spam is dominant feature of your editing style so a reasonable person has to address that, which several editors have. My goal is to have you refrain from promoting yourself through Wikipedia and to contribute your knowledge with well respected secondary sources which are considered much more credible and much less controversial. That is reasonable and has been brought to your attention in the past by other editors. I do not dispute your expertise you claim as I have no easy way of disputing or verifying your claims. But as an academic I know it is highly suspect to quote myself and best to use secondary sources. Thank you for some of the articles you have created however they would be better articles if they were not primarily citing yourself. They need a lot of work on the references and for all practical purposes only reflect your view. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Is your posting "Another Link Spam Warning" in regards to the past or are you referring to recent edits on Wikipedia? I did read link spammer and appreciate your concerns for the Wikipedia community and I do acknowledge some fault here. But again it wan't with the intent of self-promoting it was with the intent of getting information out or linking relevant sites to key battles of the Vietnam War as fought by US Army Rangers/Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols provided on my website. Thank you for acknowledging the work of the articles I created. I understand your goal to use secondary sources rather than primary sources whenever possible. I also believe I understand exactly what you are saying: I can cite my work but to do it sparingly and to contribute more work, opinions, and references from other sources. I will do that but I need to address one matter: Much of the work already on those pages are text or summarized text from my book or other writings and it would be a disservice to Wikipedia users to not have those sources known. Thanks again, Icemanwcs (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning About Deleting or Changing Material on a NoticeBoard[edit]

I just noticed you changed your wording on the RSN noticeboard. That is frowned upon as it can be seen as being deceptive or attempting to cover up your previous edit. It is best to strike through leaving the original wording there or better to add an additional post to clarify your original post. Minor edits like correcting spelling are generally acceptable but changing the wording after someone responds is not. This is meant to inform as many editors are unfamiliar with the many wikiguidelines. Thanks 172.56.9.123 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Thank you for alerting me to this issue. I wrote my response late last night and only made several minor changes this morning to clarify English and the point I was making. I don't think the edits infringed on any response made by another editor. I will keep the guidelines in mind when using the noticeboard in future.Icemanwcs (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Robert Ankony, various articles for a discussion of references to your published writings on Wikipedia. Rezin (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Robert I like how you are now referencing many other sources besides your self. It gives the article more credibility when it has many different sources. It also helps those who want to find additional information for research. It is ok to judiciously use your self as a source but I will caution to only do it when it really helps the article and outside sources cannot be found. Be aware it can be looked down upon if one does it to often, people get suspicious and there are often good reasons to be. I see a great improvement in your recent editing and it does improve Wikipedia's relevance and credibility. Thanks for your collaboration in this encyclopedia. Semper Fi! 67.5.21.115 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Thanks for your instructive comments and will comply.Icemanwcs (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Rezin talk talk talk I was once informed to view my role as an editor to “What can I do for Wikipedia rather than what Wikipedia can do for me.” That is straightforward advice; however, I also do research and writings on criminology, firearms, and military history. I am also the representative for the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment Association at Fort Benning’s Best Ranger Competition. In question is the link “Photographic history of LRRP Rangers in the Vietnam War” http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/ that I believe would be of great interest to Wikipedia users. The link depicts the biggest battles of the Vietnam War and would be especially relevant to the following Wikipedia sites: 75th Ranger Regiment, U.S. Army Rangers, Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, Tet Offensive, Battle of Quang Tri (1968), Operation Delaware, Battle of Signal Hill, and Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP). Yes, the link is to my website but the purpose is not self-promotion– rather to share this unique photographic history and scholarly account with the Wikipedia community. The site links to Wikipedia and Google Analytics verifies it draws people from throughout the English speaking world and from countries such as, Italy, Russia, France, and Germany. It’s all about sharing knowledge. People express appreciation and David Maraniss, Associate Editor, Washington Post, and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist has been in contact because of information presented. I would appreciate a dialogue. Respectfully,Icemanwcs (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post your question at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. The editors there can give you the most definitive answers.Rezin (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Hopefully I'll figure exactly how to use that page,Icemanwcs (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rezin talk talk talk I would like to prudently add the link “Photographic history of 1st Cav LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam 1968” to the following three sites: Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP); LRRP; and 75th Ranger Regiment. The site provides a unique, scholarly account of the LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive (the biggest battle of the war), the Battle of Khe Sanh (the second largest battle of the war), and the air assault into A Shau Valley (the most formidable enemy-held territory in South Vietnam). 1968 was the peak year of the war and today’s Rangers' history links back to the LRRP/Rangers of the Vietnam War. Incidentally, the 1st Air Cavalry Division was the first army division to arrive in Vietnam, and its company of LRRP/Rangers, Company E/H Company (Ranger) lost the last two Rangers of that war. The link Photographic history of 1st Cav LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam 1968 would be very relevant to those pages and are not for self promotion. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:TomStar81@enwiki I don't have anyone in mind other than I'd like to say I appreciate the Wikipedia staff who helped me become a more professional Wikipedia editor. Icemanwcs (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Icemanwcs. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still alive?[edit]

Is this: [1] you? Mztourist (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting[edit]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]