User talk:Anaruna
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Anaruna has not edited Wikipedia since 22 February 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
August 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm Gaarmyvet. I wanted to let you know that I undid recent contribution because it didn't appear constructive. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, it wasn't particularly important, I just thought it looked tidier. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC))
Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Songs of Faith and Devotion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave. 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) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, RockDrummerQ. 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)
Recent edits[edit]
Hello, please could you explain your recent edits: ie strategic being added to result of a victory in infobox? I have reverted a number of your edits. Shire Lord (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, which infobox are you referring to? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- These two: Battle of Germantown and Battle of Quebec (1775) but I will check others you have done too. Shire Lord (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay in replying, I had gone to sleep. I'll address each point in turn (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- In regards to the Battle of Germantown; the battle was indeed a tactical victory for the British. They had forced the American army into a long retreat, and held the field. They prevented Washington's plan coming to fruition. In regards to limited strategic gains for the British, the source that I backed that up with stated that, had Washington's army won, the defeat likely would have been too much for the British government, having so recently lost an army at Saratoga. Thus, this enabled the British to continue fighting; hence the short-term strategic gains. In regards to the long-term strategic gains for the Americans, it was the battles effect upon the French, as well as the British failure to follow up on their success. The British could easily have pursued and destroyed the American army, yet did not. This enabled Washington's army to remain intact, leading to their retraining at Valley Forge, where they emerged as a much stronger, cohesive fighting unit than before. The battle had considerable effects upon the French Court; as they were more impressed by the ability of the Americans, after suffering a string of setbacks, to launch such a daring and bold attack. This, in turn, led to greater French involvement. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- In regards to the Battle of Quebec - the American attempt to capture the city had failed. Had the city been captured, it likely would have greatly upset British strategic efforts, as the British used Canada as a base of operations for launching assaults into American territory. While it did not repulse the invasion entirely (thus, it is not decisive), it is strategic in the sense the American army did not capture the city, and bought the British enough time for reinforcements to swell the garrison, eventually compelling the Americans to withdraw. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- This is all very well, but in order to change certain facts you must put this in the talk page or even use a source to state that it was a strategic victory. Using terms like 'had Washington won' is Counterfactual history. Regards Shire Lord (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I had used sources, as both claims in the infobox were referenced. I will present it on the talk page and see what a discussion would think. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC))
- This is all very well, but in order to change certain facts you must put this in the talk page or even use a source to state that it was a strategic victory. Using terms like 'had Washington won' is Counterfactual history. Regards Shire Lord (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to the Battle of Quebec - the American attempt to capture the city had failed. Had the city been captured, it likely would have greatly upset British strategic efforts, as the British used Canada as a base of operations for launching assaults into American territory. While it did not repulse the invasion entirely (thus, it is not decisive), it is strategic in the sense the American army did not capture the city, and bought the British enough time for reinforcements to swell the garrison, eventually compelling the Americans to withdraw. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- In regards to the Battle of Germantown; the battle was indeed a tactical victory for the British. They had forced the American army into a long retreat, and held the field. They prevented Washington's plan coming to fruition. In regards to limited strategic gains for the British, the source that I backed that up with stated that, had Washington's army won, the defeat likely would have been too much for the British government, having so recently lost an army at Saratoga. Thus, this enabled the British to continue fighting; hence the short-term strategic gains. In regards to the long-term strategic gains for the Americans, it was the battles effect upon the French, as well as the British failure to follow up on their success. The British could easily have pursued and destroyed the American army, yet did not. This enabled Washington's army to remain intact, leading to their retraining at Valley Forge, where they emerged as a much stronger, cohesive fighting unit than before. The battle had considerable effects upon the French Court; as they were more impressed by the ability of the Americans, after suffering a string of setbacks, to launch such a daring and bold attack. This, in turn, led to greater French involvement. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- Apologies for the delay in replying, I had gone to sleep. I'll address each point in turn (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
- These two: Battle of Germantown and Battle of Quebec (1775) but I will check others you have done too. Shire Lord (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 8 December[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Napoleonic Wars page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 25 December[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Napoleonic Wars page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
With reference to you series of edit to Napoleonic Wars during December 2016 (diff) --There was one intermediate edit (diff diff-2) by user:인천직전, that are in the larger diff, but that series of two edits are not pertinent to this posting. In this large edit you added a number of short citations that do not have any long citations to go with them listing them with the numbers of the footnotes at end of your series of edits:
| fn Dec | short cite | fn 23 April | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 56 | Riehn 1991, p. 50 | 55 | There is another Riehn book cited before your citation was added, but it is dated 1990 |
| 59 | Upton 2003 | N/A | no longer cited |
| 62 | White 2011 cites Dumas 1923 citing Hodge | 60 | I guess this is a reference to Matthew White's website that was already cited. If so please add "ref=White" to the previous White citation (currently fn 58 (in Dec. fn 60)). |
| 63 | White 2011 cites Bodart 1916 | 61 | |
| 64 | Philo 2010 | 62 |
Please could you add longer citations for Riehn, and Philo, Dumas, Bodart and if necessary White? -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- I fixed the citations I listed here on 23rd April. AFAICT you copied the facts with the short citations from other articles. Philo, White, Dumas and Bodart came from Napoleonic Wars casualties, and Riehn|1991 from French invasion of Russia. If that is so please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and more specifically the section "Other reasons for attributing text".
- --PBS (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Non-free image use[edit]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically Talk:British Empire#Infobox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hi RockDrummerQ. File:Commonwealth Flag - 2013.svg is licensed as a non-free image which means that each use of it must comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. One of these requirements in WP:NFCC#9 which states that non-free content may only be used in the article mainspace. Non-free content being discussed on an article talk page may be linked to if necessary, but the file should not be displayed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You Broke 3RR[edit]
You've reverted that bit in the infobox 4 times in 24 hours, thats in violation of the 3RR rule. Also your assertion that the infobox "has always said mercenaries" is made in bad faith, since you yourself were the one that originally changed it to that from what had been in place since 2014.XavierGreen (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- You've repeatedly reverted it without consensus. It was not made in bad faith, as everyone (including the sources) seem to be in unanimous agreement that the term we should be using is mercenaries. According to the archived discussions I've gone through, you've repeatedly made cases for it to be changed to auxiliaries, without much success. As you have no consensus, do not revert it further. Anaruna(talk)
May 2017[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Your assertions are incorrect. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch. Anaruna(talk)
- If anything, I "paraphrased" content at best, though I made efforts to re-write the vast majority in my own words. Would it still need to be attributed? Anaruna(talk)
- The problem is that sources were copy and pasted from the original article thus causing errors. This fact will also lead most to belive the sources have not been vented.....as in you the paraphraser have not actually seen the source thus the text your writing is really sourced to Wikipedia.--Moxy (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Boston Tea Party Pricing[edit]
FYI, I think the formatting for the price of the tea destroyed during the Boston Tea Party is a bit off. I'm not sure how to fix it myself, so I thought I'd give you a heads up. Dbrote (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- It does look a little off. I'll have a look at it when I get back, I'm just about to head out. Thanks for the heads up!
Talkback[edit]
Message added 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shearonink (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Your customized Anaruna signature[edit]
is lacking the time/day stamp. Please fix it. Every time you sign your posts (which is great) on a talk page, your post is missing the time/date stamp (which isn't), because that can mess up archiving-bots and can also make it difficult to figure out the timelines of threaded discussions on WP talkpages. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Anaruna. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Anaruna. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Anaruna. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Arms of Sir Edward Stanley.svg listed for discussion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arms of Sir Edward Stanley.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Arms of Stuart of Darnley, Earl of Lennox.svg listed for discussion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arms of Stuart of Darnley, Earl of Lennox.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
File:Arms of the Baron Dacre.svg listed for discussion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arms of the Baron Dacre.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Arms of the Lords of Home.svg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Arms of the Lords of Home.svg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)