User talk:FieldMarine

Welcome!

Hello, FieldMarine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 15:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Hi there,[reply]

Please do not create too many wikilinks in your article Universal Ship Cancellation Society. More than one link to ship is redundant and useless. Regards, -- Iván Sánchez^(talk) 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ship Cover USS Brevard (AK-164) 1946.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name File:Ship Cover USS Brevard Ship (AK-164) 1946.jpg. The copy called Image:Ship Cover USS Brevard Ship (AK-164) 1946.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say, do you know who did the cachet on File:Ship Cover USS Brevard (AK-164) 1946.jpg ? If it was somebody like Artcraft, they would likely have a valid copyright on the artwork, and so the cover could not be in the public domain unless they released it. If it was a Navy person, and done on the job, it would be validly PD. (The 1930s cover I uploaded just has a plain text cachet, so nothing copyrightable there.) Stan 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Unit Insignia 4th CAG.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:4th CAG at USMC War Memorial August 2004.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've replied to your comment at the Help Desk. - Rjd0060 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job on starting the Randall article...I'll help you out as I can! Semper Fi! --Mike Searson 03:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on List of museums in the United States! It is very helpful. Feel free to edit areas where I've added icons too. Here is how they work (I will explain this better on the talk page eventually:

{{museum|TYPE}}[[WIKI LINK]]<br>

TYPE is where I enter the type of museum it is. You can see all the types currently available here: Template:Museum

WIKI LINK is the Wikipedia link to that museum's page. If there is no Wikipedia page for that museum, then I use this format:

{{museum|TYPE}}[[WIKI LINK]] | [http://WEB LINK/ web]<br>

I still provide a Wikipedia link even though there is no page. This way we will get a red link that can be clicked for someone to easily add the page. In this situation (where there's no Wikipedia article), I also add WEB LINK to that museum's website. I do not do this for museums that already have Wikipedia pages because the website should be on that respective page.

Here are some locations where you need spaces and where you can't have spaces:

{{museum|TYPE}}(NO SPACE)[[WIKI LINK]](SPACE)|(SPACE)[http://WEB LINK/(SPACE)web]<br>

I have not found a way around using <br> on the end.

I see that you're using proper <br /> tags. I had chosen to use regular <br> just plainly for simplicity. I want to make it as simple as absolutely possible so people don't take one look and immediately turn away when they want to add a museum. It is more confusing than it was before especially to someone who doesn't really know Wiki/HTML markup. Wikimedia automatically converts <br> to <br /> when it parses the page. For example, if you look in the page source somewhere where I did a <br>, you'll see that it does turn up as a proper <br />. I'd appreciate if you used regular <br> so it's all consistent.

Thanks again for your help with this article. I will also write this in its discussion page when I get around to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FieldMarine.

It doesn't say anything about closed museums - you are right. But I believe that List of museums in the United States should only contain museums that still are open. I think I should start List of defunct museums in the United States for closed museums. It's good that you raised this issue because I may have forgotten that I did that. I don't know if you noticed but the closed museums are still in the page but they are commented out with <!-- and --> tags. So we don't have to dig through the history to find them. I believe that I removed 3 closed museums if I can remember right.

You mentioned earlier about alphabetizing the icon key. I think this is a good idea, but I have them sort of grouped so similar ones are together. Is this okay with you?

I would like to work together on these issues and find a solution that suits us both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on this article. I've wanted to see an article started for this great museum for a long time. I've got pictures of most of the exhibits there, I'll probably add a few more images to the gallery section, if there is anything specific that you would like to see that I might be able to add, please let me know. Fl295 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi. well, you placed Category:Florida Registered Historic Places building and structure stubs on the article and I was going with that. I have no source for the it though. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The church's website claims that the church is an "Historic Landmark of Brevard County." I'm not sure that means it's a Registered Historic Place. I'll look into it a bit more.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Melbourne, Florida) It is not on the National Register of Historic Places Also, FieldMarine, I appreciate your efforts on creating articles about places on the Treasure and Space coasts, but I am quite concerned about your reverts of my attempts to improve this article. The parish is historic. The chapel building is historic. The building and the parish are intertwined. You really cannot separate the two. I don't want to get into a revert war with you. clariosophic (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Melbourne, Florida) Oblique View.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name File:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Oblique View).jpg. The copy called Image:Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Oblique View).jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	In the area? You're invited to
	Miami Meetup 2
	Date: Saturday, January 19, 2008
	Place: Bayside Marketplace, 3:00PM EST
	Miami Meetup 2

Hope you can come! - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the image; I just moved it down to the bottom of the box, to avoid having a long stack of images at the top. Is that a problem? Kirill 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Ben Boldt (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I would have done things differently... I think the table format is bloated and looks sloppy. I think if you want to see more info about a museum, you should click on it and view the article and leave the list nice and concise. I would like to have the map at the top of each page to navigate between them too. We should brainstorm for a while and think about what needs to be done to make this better because I agree that it seems almost destroyed in its current state. We could work on some stuff in some sandboxes for a while and when we get things looking better we could ask around and see if people support our ideas. Because I have a feeling if we don't have some backup this guy is going to undo all the changes...

I really think the lists should contain only the name and the icon to show what kind it is, plus a web link if there's no article, just like how it was before. I thought it was very easy to read.

Ben Boldt (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on Brevard county articles, both new and existing. Has improved area content dramatically! Student7 (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unintentional mistake. The proper fixes will be made. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if you did that. It would not be convincing if I did it because I already did it once and he RE-DID his changes and continued on even after I told him to hold on for us to discuss his changes. If two separate people undo his disaster then we have more leverage.

Reverting is easier if you install Twinkle into your Wikipedia account. Here's how:

Create this page: User:FieldMarine/monobook.js

and type this into it:

importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');

If you don't like it, just erase that code and that will uninstall it. You can see this page for more info on how to use Twinkle: Wikipedia:TWINKLE

Ben Boldt (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was trying to improve the internal link in Florida Institute of Technology and I was wondering if you had enough information to write an article about Crane Creek in Melbourne, Florida. Currently, "Crane Creek" is a redirect to Crane Creek in California. Thanks! I look forward in working with you. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a red-link for Crane Creek so that it is a disambig page instead of a redirect. The proposed title will be Crane Creek (Melbourne, Florida). Thanks again. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Noroton (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"of" or "in" in categories[edit]

In categories, sometime I see "of" used & sometimes "in" used, such as "Category:Parks in the United States" or "Category:Lakes of the United States". I know this is splitting hairs, but is there official guidance for which one to use? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is – Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Enjoy. Bencherlite^Talk 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Replied to your question, suggesting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) might be what you want. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to change the Working Man’s Barnstar to just Worker’s Barnstar? I want to give that award to an editor. Not that I’m overly PC, I just honestly don’t know their gender. Just a thought. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you put {{subst:The Working Man's Barnstar|message ~~~~|n}} then the following will be produced:

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		message The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hester Wagner Community House Sign 1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name File:Hester Wagner Community House Sign.jpg. The copy called Image:Hester Wagner Community House Sign.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Original Melbourne Village Hall Front 1.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name File:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 1.jpg. The copy called Image:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 1.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Original Melbourne Village Hall Front 2.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name File:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 2.jpg. The copy called Image:Old Melbourne Village Hall Front 2.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all landmarks are buildings or structures. For example, Sugarloaf Mountain, in Rio de Janeiro, is a landmark. Therefore you were wrong to eliminate this category. MdArtLover (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- I have been to the Vernon Court & it is very nice. On this article article, I eliminated the Category:Houses because the article already contained Category:Houses in Rhode Island, which is a subcat of Category:Houses. Thus, it is redundant to have it in the upper level category when it is covered by a lower level, more specific category. So I am unclear about your comment regarding Landmarks or buildings category -- these categories remain unchanged. What exactly do you disagree with? FieldMarine (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard my quibble. I was mistaken. I hope that in future I'll read more carefully! MdArtLover (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is actually a section within/ie inside the imogiri graveyard and as such does not constitute a separate graveyard SatuSuro 07:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - I have needed to get back to the main article and get my head around some of the issues about such an article - there are hundreds of internees who technically need articles about themselves (1650's to now) and I have not had the headspace to deal with them - so any category is fine for the moment - it may take time to deal with :| SatuSuro 12:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long story which i may if i am mad enough hope to make into a book - 'sultan agung' and I - a sort of scottish ancestry australian accidentally wandering into the depths of the javanese traditional graveyard system and walking out again - back into australian society and never getting a phd finished about it all - i hope theres enough humour in it :( SatuSuro 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Ben Boldt to comment on the discussion at Talk:List of museums in the United States when he gets back. After he's commented (or if he still hasn't been back to Wikipedia after a few more days), I think it's time to wrap up the discussions and decide that we have a consensus on what the lists should look like to start out with. I've begun adding lots of museums from the online list you had linked to, starting with List of museums in Rhode Island and List of museums in Maine. Sound good? Noroton (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my comments at CFD on defunct museum catgories. I have no axe to grind on this one, but I do get fed up of editors (not you) proposing to upmerge an intersection category to only one of its parents. If that happens, then sets of articles disappear from a whole taxonomy. I hope that is clear now. Cheers, - Fayenatic (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for prompting me to be clearer! - Fayenatic (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I took the museums in all the state defunct museum categories and stuck them into "Defunct museums" sections at the bottom of each relevant state list-of-museums article. So at least not all of your work with them was in vain. I can't support keeping the categories, but I don't feel strongly about it. At some point when there are more museums to fill the categories, they'll be restored. In fact, I think it's inevitable, but I don't think there will be enough support for keeping them now. Best, Noroton (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your Help desk questions, to what extent I could:

• WP:HD#Recommendation for using sortable tables in other articles (that link will break in a few days after the section goes into the Help desk archive; here is a permanent link for future reference)

I mention this here because that Help desk question is starting to age, drifting higher on the page, and further discussion there may not attract notice. --Teratornis (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)++[reply]

Thank you for your kind words about the airport. I will review the article of course. Jamonsontai and I have a nice working arrangement. He does all the work and (if everyone likes it) I take all the credit!  :) Actually I would have included you before you wrote me! I have nearly no eye for pictures but will do my best. Thanks for your contributions. Student7 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, every year I see people mispronounce, misspell (or both) my name... but this one's a new one... lol - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FM,

Could you please look at this diff at the Alaska museum list talk page and tell me if you think that's a good way of posting it? I'd like your advice before I put a copy of that on all the other talk pages. I think the Talk:List of museums in Alabama]] page already says the same thing but with different language. If you think the Alabama page should be changed, how would you do it? I'm really not sure. If you want to make changes there, feel free, but I won't. Noroton (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Why not add a sentence on the talk page "Inclusion criteria" section that reads: "Also inappropriate for this list are planetariums, List of aquaria and List of zoos, which have their own lists."? I'd include the links I include here but mask them with the words "aquaria" and "zoos". I wouldn't imply that it was the paragraph that got consensus, I'd just state it in the next paragraph. I'd also like to include a sentence at the top of every list noting that there is a "See also" section at the bottom where other institutions are listed. I think doing all that would do the trick.

(2) No, I don't like including the closed museums in the regular list at all. I think it just introduces needless confusion for the reader. The sortable lists allow us to quickly group like items and narrow down searches. I don't see any reason why someone would want closed and open museums in the same bunch. It's just easier all around to separate open and closed museums into different lists.

(3) I like the General information section you added. Why don't I add that when I add the other section to the talk page.

If you agree to what I'm suggesting here, I'll begin making the changes across all the state lists. Noroton (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start doing it then. By the way, as to the regions: I'd like to try them out. If there's a disagreement about regions, it seems to me it can be solved simply by listing the counties that are in each region. If regions are vague, I don't see that as a major problem, because I don't think it will cause major confusion. Any reader really confused can look up the town link, which often comes with a little map (at least they do in Connecticut) or maps are available on the web. The "region" is named just to give people an idea that certain museums are in the same general area. If needed, it wouldn't be too difficult to list the Alabama counties that we could put in each of the regions I name in that listing. My intention is to leave the "region" column empty in most states and maybe someone from that state would fill it in. I might fill in the equivalent of "Birmingham area" for major cities in a state, but again, I don't see vagueness as a problem initially, and if it becomes a problem I think it can be worked out. At least, I think so. Noroton (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is for your tireless efforts in creating and improving Florida articles, specifically, but not limited to, articles on subjects in Brevard County. Thanks! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, and for asking me if I had anny objections on renaming Wickham Park, Manchester, CT to Wickham Park (Manchester, Connecticut).

I do not have any objections at all to the suggested change of name. The only reason why I changed the name — from Wickham Park to Wickham Park, Manchester, CT — was to differentiate it from Wickham Park here in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (where I live).

As you have requested, I will go to the talk page for Wickham Park, Manchester, CT and comment there. All the best. Figaro (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Figaro (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was my reasoning in separating the pages: There are many jail and prison museums that don't have "Old Jail" in their name. I think we agree that some list of these museums is useful on Wikipedia. But disambiguation pages are only for disambiguating names, as Wikipedia:Disambiguation repeatedly states. If there were some overriding, overwhelming reason to contradict the guideline, I would have no problem with that, but it seems to me that the separate list would serve the separate purpose of listing all the museums and doing it in different ways from the disambiguation page. For instance, we might make the "List of prison museums" a sortable table or organize it by geography. Both pages should link to each other, of course. I'm also concerned about the title "Old Jail Museum", which is fine for a disambiguation page but doesn't fit Wikipedia style for article pages. Therefore either readers won't be able to figure out the prison museum list by themselves and simply type it in the search function, or we need redirect pages. Redirect pages take up about as much space on Wikipedia's servers as a prison list page would. So what's the point in combining them? I see no confusion or extra work involved in having two pages. Ultimately, uniform style helps readers concentrate on what they're looking for rather than having to adjust to different list styles on the same subject. Noroton (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment at Talk:List of jail and prison museums and suggest that the discussion continue there. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pick your brain about two different things:

1. I recently created List of science museums in the United States and, more as an experiment than anything else, I created three different columns on the subject of "type". The idea was to try to better capture the subjects covered in the museum in a way that would allow someone to search for those that might have a secondary focus on something. But I have a lot of doubts that it can work well, and it may just be confusing. If you're interested, please take a look and tell me what you think on the talk page there.

1. I discovered Category:Prison museums which has a subcategory for prison museums in Australia. Whatever we do with the disambiguation page (and two editors from WP:MOSDAB are saying we should combine them, and I can go along with that), do you think it would be better to have a separate United States list (and maybe an Australian list and a U.K. list) or should we combine them into one worldwide list? To me, it's a question of what would be most useful for readers, but I don't know what that would be. Any advice on either of these would be appreciated. Cheers, Noroton (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the table in the list of science museums: It looks great to me. You might want to consider deleting the "tertiary" column unless you have a reasonable hope that there will eventually be at least several entries in it; renaming the "tertiary" column to "Other focus" or just "Tertiary focus"; and/or renaming the "Notes" column to "Official museum website" or something.

Re categories and splitting pages: the way the categories are organized does not have to be the same as the way the list(s) is/are organized; it could be argued that it's better for them to be different, otherwise they're giving redundant information (though it could also be argued that it's better for them to be the same, so never mind -- just organize each one, lists or categories, in the way that makes the most sense without regard to how the other is organized; at least, that's my suggestion but I don't have experience with that particular situation.) Re splitting a page: I would suggest having them all on one page unless that page is overly long, a large number of screenfuls of information, and splitting them would result in most of the smaller pages being more than one screenful long. When considering how to split them, you need to consider WP:NPOV. I think it might not be NPOV to have one United States list and one "everything except the United States" list. It just doesn't seem like a balanced international point of view to do that. Or, maybe it would be OK. I'm not sure. You could consider splitting them by continent or something. It's OK, in my opinion, to have a few pages that are for individual countries or continents and other pages that are for a group of many countries or continents, if some countries or continents don't have enough entries to justify a page by themselves. Use your judgement as to how long is too long for one page; or see WP:SUMMARY which says "What constitutes 'too long' is largely based on the topic, but generally 30KB of prose is the starting point where articles may be considered too long." For lists, it may be a smaller number of bytes representing a similar number of screenfuls of information to an article of that length; or maybe it really is the number of bytes that's important. If nobody else objects, it's largely up to you how to do it.

I think both of you are doing good work here. These lists of museums look quite useful. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FieldMarine, I'll let you take care of the merging, as you suggested. Noroton (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FM, Good question, I think I errored... I was searching for other Aviation Hall of Fames, finding the Florida HOF and in looking for the Florida Aviation Historical Society I hit on the Florida History Society, and must have thought "eureka!" and dropped the references accordingly. Now seeing my error, I'll removed the links. I'll drop them on the Talk:Colorado Aviation Hall of Fame for any future references or needs. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cheers! Lance... LanceBarber (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. Lance... LanceBarber (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eau Gallie Yacht Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you depopulated the category and requested speedy deletion of the category? Many of your edits seem to be unhelpful. Bastin 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The eliminated category was redundant & confusing considering the existing, well used cat Monuments & memorials. The large majority of monuments in almost all countries are actually listed under the cat Monuments & memorials with only a few in the singular Monuments cat. Additionally, there is no corresponding National memorials cat to match the National monuments cat. By eliminating the National monuments cat, there are useful & more consistent groupings. For example, National Memorials of the U.S. and National Monuments of the U.S. are collocated under the Cat Memorial and monuments in the US, making it much easier to navigate & provides better hierarchical structure & logical taxonomy. What problem specifically do you have with organizing in that manner? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National monuments was a subcategory of Category:Monuments and memorials. Hence, the fact that the latter category is well-used is hardly surprising, and the fact that a separate subcategory existed for national monuments is entirely appropriate. If the concern was that there is assymetry, you should have done was proposed renaming Category:National monuments to Category:National monuments and memorials under the process of WP:CfR. Depopulating a category manually for the purpose of making it qualify for speedy deletion is vandalism. I am fixing the issue now. Bastin 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Refining categories & eliminating redundant ones is not vandalism...it's done on a daily basis in wikipedia. These categories still don't follow a logical flow. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FieldMarine,

ERcheck and I have argeed to add a note on the "list" as to what is expected of those who edit and add names to said list. Since you are a regular editor of the list, I hope that you agree with us and help us in making sure that other people follow the rules when adding names to the list. Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I have notified ERcheck that you have joined us in our quest. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a separate article for United States Marine Corps use of the term Leatherneck for use in redirects in main articles written about Marines. I was thinking I could move the current Leatherneck article to “Leatherneck (disambiguation)” so I could use that article title for the article currently located at User:FieldMarine/Sandbox 2. I would like your opinion on that? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USMC use is certainly the primary meaning of the term, and there is no other article with that exact title, so the move makes sense to me. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question because I'm still learning about categories. I noticed in this edit you changed the order of the cats. Is there a guideline somewhere as to the order? I admit to being guilty of listing rather haphazardly. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I alphabetize cats if I make a change to one & in this case, the change was making "Defunct Museums" to "Defunct Museums in the United States". This sometimes adds to consistency across the board, but not always. I'm not aware of any guidance for ordering cats. If there is a logical reason to order them differently, I would go for it. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no logical reason to do it otherwise. I tend to just add on when I find a new or missed cat. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aquaria in Venezuela 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, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, 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 this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Oore (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the redundant addition of the Rhode Island Historical Society..I didn't notice the official state h.s. section. Feel free to remove it. Swampyank (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sort of lost interest in the lists of museums when they all changed. This is unfortunate. They are growing very well though. I may contribute here and there but I am no longer obsessed with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Boldt (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to Mayfield Park, Hampshire, cleaning up the references. I knew the long list of references was messy, but I had no idea it could be optimised this way. Your changes have helped me to discover something new about Wikipedia. Its been very helpful and is much appreciated. Hethurs (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FieldMarine. It's been a while since I looked at this article. (The sortable table format looks really good, to me!} I'm willing to jump in and work on it but am a little unclear where the current editors are trying to go, as it has several simultaneous formats. Please let me know if you would like another helper. Tim Ross (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having one sortable table is the most efficient way to see all the museums in a city or region. If a special link is needed for a particular grouping, maybe another column with that link would be helpful? I'm trying to add all the museums in the state, as I have tried to do for many other states, and the overall sortable table format is good for finding listings. What specific link or info should I add? Jllm06 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Civil-military operations, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Civil-military_operations_(military). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fellow comrades, I'm requesting your participation as an uninvolved party in the following consensus: Gen. Raymond T. Odierno in an effort to terminate an edit-war between the two parties involved . The issue involved has to do with the inclusion in Odierno's biography his participation in the so-called "Surge" or to simply "link" said Surge to an article about said subject. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for your valued participation and suggestions on the Gen. Raymond T. Odierno biography. The edit "protection" of the aticle will be lifted soon. Consensus suggest that additional info should be included for his early life and career. Career history should go after the "Early life and education" section. It is recognized that the general's involvement in the planning and undertaking of the surge is notable and should be included in the article, however it should be limited in scope to what was verifiably done by the general and should not weigh too heavily on that particular subject in order to to have a more balanced biography. Final comments welcomed. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be traveling for 5-days next week and I am hoping that you take complete charge of the "List". Don't the other party get you too caught up in the "McGuinn" ordeal. If the user provides a primary reliable source, let it go. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FieldMarine, you are one of the best persons whom I have had the pleasure of working and interacting with in Wikipedia and therefore, with great pleasure I have inducted you into my "Wall of Honor". Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well my friend, I'm back from the cruise. The ship stopped in Catalina Island and in Ensenada Mexico. The last time I was in Mexico was in 1969, when I was sent to Camp Pendelton and I visited Tijuana. The thing about Ensenada that I had to see was La Bufadora and the Convention center which once was a casino owned by Al Capone. Semper Fi, Tony the Marine (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the "Legion of Merit". Tony the Marine (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I used the term "literal Valentine" and the Fairmount Park Commission as they did occur on February 14th. Wikipedia allows you to be creative in the articles. I guess that you fail to see through the creative process. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:00 PM US EDT Oct 21 2008.

Please keep the article in an encyclopedic style for an international audience. Also, please use references when adding material & ensure its context is understood outside the local area. Keep the information relevant to the topic. It’s unclear to the reader what the relevance is about a proposed plan by Simon Property Group that fell through at a different location. How is that important? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the fifth pillar where the words "Be bold" is pointed out? I have a source that will be placed within the story when i re-edit it from the Philadelphia Inquirer about said Penns' Landing project. If that isn't considered a reputable source, then you sir can forget it! NoseNuggets (talk) 11:47 PM US EDT oct 21 2008.

I’m not really sure what’s bold about this article or any of the edits so far. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to live in Philadelphia, BTW. And was that "thanks" sarcastic? NoseNuggets (talk) 12:09 AM US EDT Oct 22 2009.

I sign off mostly all my comments with "Thanks!" Just habbit I guess. I apologize if I offended you by saying that. FieldMarine (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense. BTW, the reference to the "valentine" in the Please Touch Museum item was the fact being the announcement date: February 14, 2005, also known as "Valentine's Day". Artistic license so to speak. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:22 AM US EDT Oct 22 2008.

I hope you consider my input as constructive as I’m only trying to improve the article. Overall, I actually believe the article has improved with the iterations & your edits have added much value. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These items that you claim to have fixed are all in opposition to the manual of style. Please read it to help make a uniform encyclopedia. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 17:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution!

Looking over your list of articles, I believe we have a number of interests in common (CA, Liberia, international development, etc). Contact me, please, at warner.anderson@tma.osd.mil. I am director of International Health Division at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). Just-retired SF and US Army CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.149.74 (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your note and referencing. The way you had it you would need to have both the "Note" section and the "References" section, such as seen here: Felice Beato. If instead you do as I have, and you can see an example here, 7 World Trade Center, or on one of the 25 GAs and 1 FA I've personal done here, you can combine them into one section. Combining them tends to make sense on small articles like this, or when the sources used are generally small (in the way of page numbers, thus less need for "Johnson, pp. 14-16" followed by "Ibid., p. 76" and the like). And generally since FA changed the criteria to require inline citations, the old way described on WP:CITE where there is a general references section is a bit depreciated. The more standard way can be seen at a current FA candidate, USS Constitution. There the ref section is as it is on the Freeport, and the notes are more of a explanatory type note and not references. Hopefully this helps, but let me know if you have questions or disagree. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Obelisks in France, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Obelisks in France has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Obelisks in France, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wishing you an advanced Happy USMC and Veterans Day. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to share with you an underserved surprise that I recieved today, the USMC birthday, in an e-mail. [1] Tony the Marine (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you and your loved ones a Happy Thanksgiving Day. Semper Fi, Tony the Marine (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marine how's everything? Man, I wrote an article about Ivan Castro (soldier), the only blind officer serving in the Special Forces and it came out in "DYK". The big surprise is that it received 71,300 hits making it the #1 DYK article of all time. You would think that I would be happy with the DYK results, but you should see all the crap that went on in the articles talk page. It was unbelievable, made think about never nominating an article for DYK again. Well buddy take care and Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey buddy, send me your e-mail address (maybe via my e-mail) I want to share some news with you. Sepmer Fi, Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Category:Humanitarian operations, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Field Marine, according to the article Marine Corps Museum, the museum was never located in Virginia (though the current National Museum of the Marine Corps, which has its own article and is linked from this article) and the museum is not operating in D.C. anymore, so it's not a museum in D.C. Scarykitty (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the "Museums in" category should be limited to currently operating museums. The category Defunct museums in the United States might later be split into Defunct museums in Virginia and the like, but until then, I think it's overcategorization to have the 3 categories (defunct, DC, Virginia). Scarykitty (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i came across the article you created on Plumb House (Waynesboro, Virginia) back in 2007. Nice job, thanks for starting it with link to the PDF NRHP application document for it and so on. I notice, though, that you apparently manually created the NRHP infobox on the page, probably without knowledge that there is a tool available to create NRHP infoboxes more easily and more completely. You might want to check it out, if you might create other articles on the List of RHPs in VA or otherwise. To use it, just visit http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, and enter, say, "Plumb" and "VA". It generates output with a filled-out infobox ready to be cut and pasted into your new article. I just used it to update the Plumb House infobox to include latitude and longitude coordinates and to display a map. It comes in with a suitable footnote stating that the data was sourced from the National Register Information System (NRIS) in April 2008, which is the date of a big download by User:Elkman into his infobox tool system. That April 2008 date should not be changed to a current date unless of course you go to NRIS and get new data from there. You can add other info to the infobox, in which case it is usually appropriate to footnote the fields that you add to. Perhaps you may find the tool useful, and I hope you might consider developing more VA NRHP articles. Let me know if you have any questions. Anyhow, nice work on the Plumb article. :) doncram (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note & the head's up on the infobox tool. That's way cool! I'll definitely use it in the future. FieldMarine (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad you like it.  :) Also I invite you to consider joining wp:NRHP. Whether you join or not (which u would do just by adding your name to its membership list), you are very welcome to post questions at our Talk page wt:NRHP and to announce new NRHP articles you've created in the new article announcement box on the main page wp:NRHP. That tends to attract some helpful attention, like edits adding categories and other stuff, by NRHP regulars. Cheers, doncram (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Town of Chincoteague Seal (transparent background) low res.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Town of Chincoteague Seal (transparent background) low res.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Town of Chincoteague Seal (transparent background) low res.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This file has been moved to Commons, could you please precise whether you are the person stated as the photograph, or only the uploader? Thanks a lot! --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, please: File:Ginter Building Detail 1.jpg --Eusebius (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obelisks in Washington, D.C., which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. APK How you durrin? 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Roadology, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Appears to be a neologism

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —Snigbrook 00:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Roadology (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 22), I've proposed a merge to its parent categories. —Snigbrook 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Its good to know someone's actually looking at what we do! SGT141 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you created this template. I've just left a note on its talk page suggesting that a default image size would be a great improvement to it - could avoid a monstrosity like this! Any chance you could tweak the template to include that? PamD (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fieldmarine I've been adding the chincoteague.com links to the Chincoteague page and you have been deleting them due to your assumption that they are spam. I had the first Chincoteague page before any others and worked with the town and the chamber in the late 90's. I was the only link from Wikipedia from quite a while that offered any information about the Island that I live at.

If that is the new rules that sites that offer a link for income then please remove all the other links that recieve money from the businesses such as http://www.chincoteagueislandvacations.com/, http://www.chincoteague-island.net/ , http://www.chincoteaguewaves.com/ and www.Chincoteaguechamber.com. These companies charge for a link as I do. We offer good content that takes a lot of time and many of us do not have the luxury of retirement income from the government and have to make an honest living. I've tried to find your email address or real name to no avail to discuss this in a civil manor. If you keep removing my links then my last resort is to report you to the Wikipedia Gods and hope I find justice there. You can find my contact iformation from my site that you keep deleting.Kandmmann (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandmmann (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss issues regarding articles is on the article talk page so the community can comment. Please see Talk:Chincoteague, Virginia. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention my fellow comrades. User:Chrisrus, has provided us with the site: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PUgDa1jy4) in which Arthur is supposed to have stated (I say "supposed" only because my internet connection is so slow that I haven't looked at it) that she was never a member of the United States Marine Corps. We "must" look into this because if it true then her name must be removed from the List of U.S. Marines. Please take a look and make recommendations. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My brother, you have got to check out this amazing story [2]. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the link is not working for everybody, I'll post it for you to read:

911 at NORTHCOM - The Marines and the Babies Seven Years Ago

Wolf- Just came from the memorial ceremony here at NORTHCOM. LTC (CH) Robert Leivers led the group in a ceremony here at the headquarters. During the ceremony, he relayed this little-known story from the Pentagon on 9/11:

"During a visit with a fellow chaplain, who happened to be assigned to the Pentagon, I had a chance to hear a first-hand account of an incident that happened right after Flt 77 hit the Pentagon. The Chaplain told me what happened at a daycare center near where the impact occurred.

"This daycare had many children, including infants who were in heavy cribs. The daycare supervisor, looking at all the children they needed to evacuate, was in a panic over what they could do; there were many children, mostly toddlers, as well as the infants that would need to be taken out with the cribs. There was no time to try to bundle them into carriers and strollers.

"Just then a young Marine came running into the center and asked what they needed. After hearing what the center director was trying to do, he ran back out into the hallway and disappeared. The director thought, 'well, there we are- on our own.' About 2 minutes later, that Marine returned with 40 others in tow. Each of them grabbed a crib with a child, and the rest started gathering up toddlers. The director and her staff then helped them take all the children out of the center and down toward the park near the Potomac and the Pentagon.

"Once they got about 3/4 of a mile outside the building, the Marines stopped in the park, and then did a fabulous thing- they formed a circle with the cribs, which were quite sturdy and heavy, like the covered wagons in the West. Inside this circle of cribs, they put the toddlers, to keep them from wandering off. Outside this circle were the 40 Marines, forming a perimeter around the children and waiting for instructions. There they remained until the parents could be notified and come get their children."

Wolf: The NORTHCOM chaplain then said- "I don't think any of us saw nor heard of this on any of the news stories of the day. It was an incredible story of our men there.

I must say- there wasn't a dry eye in the room. The thought of those Marines and what they did and how fast they reacted- could we expect any less from them?? It was one of the most touching stories from the Pentagon I've EVER heard.

Wolf

Tony the Marine (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of museums , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of museums. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oashi (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person who has never before been involved in the management of the "List of U.S. Marines" has expressed him/herself here: Talk:List of notable United States Marines#Remove edit warning. Since you have been actively involved in the management of this list, please express your opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Roadology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadology. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Triadian (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help sprucing up this article -- I was suprised I couldn't find anything about such a device on Wikipedia yet, but also had a hard time finding any substance for it. Thanks again, and keep on wiki'n! Fightin' Phillie 03:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightin' Phillie (talk • contribs)

To all my friends in Wikipedia. After so many years I have decided to take an extended leave from the project. My continued participation in the project has become less enjoyable as I have explained here. I thank God that I became involved in the project in the first place because not only have I used it to educate others, but I have also learned a lot from friends such as yourself. Try to maintain a high standard in your contributions and make sure that the truth is always told in what you write. I would like to wish you all a Happy New Year, may God Bless you and thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FieldMarine! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Delbert Daisey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Quigley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FieldMarine and thanks for the article on Epps' first aircraft -- I was really interested to learn about this one; I hadn't heard of Epps before, and am always impressed by the pioneers who did it all from scratch "the hard way".

I've moved this particular aircraft back to Epps 1907 Monoplane — as you might know, Epps actually built five completely unrelated monoplane designs between 1907 and 1924. While "1907 Monoplane" is no doubt a name applied retroactively to this particular design, builder-year-description is how aviation histories designate otherwise unnamed designs from this early period. In this specific case, "1907 Monoplane" is the name assigned in The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum Directory of Airplanes: their Designers and Manufacturers; however, if you've got another source with a different name for this specific design, then we should include that in the article too.

Thanks again for finding this one! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "article should be kept in a series". Why move the disambiguation page to the 1909 aircraft? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]