Hello, Indy beetle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Invasion of Poland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Denniss (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Indy beetle. Thanks for your contributions, but please respect WP:ENGVAR regarding national varieties of English. Those "typos" you fixed over at Battles of Narvik, were in fact not typos at all, but British English spellings. We are expected to respect the variety of English in which articles are written. Manxruler (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies, I did not realize those were British spellings! I'll keep an eye out for those. Thanks for letting me know. Indy beetle (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's okay. Perhaps it's best if you leave the copy-editing aside for a while, to avoid such misunderstandings? How is the Operation Safari writing going, by the way? Manxruler (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't been working on it much, mostly since the sources I have access to (via internet) are confusing and/or only have partial/inconsistent data. So far the only thing I have accomplished is sorting out which Danish ships were which and those that were scuttled or captured. Indy beetle (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll have a look at my library and see what I can find to help out. The Danish World War II events are important, and not much has been done about it. Manxruler (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Action in the Oslofjord, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Indy beetle. I had a look at the article Action in the Oslofjord, and I found some worrisome things. As for minor issues, much of the article is unreferenced and some of the unreferenced info incorrect, which is of course not ideal. However, I must ask: Have you actually read the books Klar til strid, Kystartilleriet gjennom århundrene and Hitler's Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway? Or have you (as it would appear, based on the style and incompleteness of the references to the books) moved info and citations (after paraphrasing the info) from the article German cruiser Blücher to Action in the Oslofjord? Manxruler (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Manxruler. Thank you for reviewing the article. It is new and still a bit of a work in progress, so I'll take all the help I can get. I myself have read portions of

Hitler's Pre-Emptive War: The Battle for Norway, but I do admit that I haven't directly laid eyes upon Klar til strid, Kystartilleriet gjennom århundrene myself, I've only seen it as a reference by various secondary sources. I guess that's improper procedure! Please correct areas of the article that you feel it necessary to do. I'm currently aware that there are several versions about the encounter between Pol III and the Albatros, and I'm trying to find which stories have more backing. Anything else i should be aware of? Indy beetle (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, I didn't think Fjeld's book was available online anywhere. Have you read the parts of Lunde's book you cite at least?

Actually reading the sources which you cite is central. If you, for example, do not actually read the source, but only sees it used (say, over at Blücher) and then use it to cite based on your impression of what it should cover, then that's really bad. So please, refrain from doing that. It's not just an issue of proper citing of sources, but also copyright, if one copies stuff other editors have written in the process, it's a case of WP:COPYWITHIN without attribution. Which again violates Wikipedia rules of copyright. So please, only use stuff you've actually read yourself.

Basically, we've all got to follow Wikipedia policies, in this case WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT ("Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself.").

Other than that, the article has too few refs, quite a few factual errors (partially in the unreferenced bits and partially in the bits covered by Pearson's book) (according to Google books, Pearson is "a high school teacher and writer", so I'm not sure how much to trust him, never heard about him before either), no categories and the references are very incomplete, plus it could use a good copy-edit. Lastly, seeing as the article relies almost solely on English-language sources, it misses a lot of key events and info. Manxruler (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Free City of Danzig Police, from its old location at User:Indy beetle/Free City of Danzig Police. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 14:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free City of Danzig Police, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Black Sea Raid without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Invasion of Poland, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Laber□^T 23:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't change the results of battles when they are sourced and explained via trusted academics. Thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this edit: please note that the ((stub)) tag always goes at the end of an article, not the top (see WP:ORDER), and it doesn't take a date parameter. Thanks. PamD 11:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, if you use a new reference in this article would you be so kind as to put the reference in the References used section of the Notes. This article uses short form citations. In the citations section, only the author and the page number need appear. The complete information for a reference should appear in the references used section with all the publication data if possible so that other editors can confirm that the citations actually cover the material cited. This format was established with this article some time ago and it would be nice to keep the Notes section as uniform as possible. Olsen and "Legal Status of Greenland are missing from the References Used section. Please add them using the established format. I have no problem with the information that you are adding to the article, but if you don't add the references properly then others will have to do it. Thank You. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems you are trying to use 2014 video to justify establish that "cafe racer" existed in the 1950s and 1960s United Kingdom during the the 1950s and 1960s? Please confirm if this is correct. What part of the video are you trying to use to justify justify your changes to the Wikipedia lead content? If you have genuine, dated, hard-published 1950s and/or 1960s sources (newspaper, magazine, book) this would be convincing. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, can't remember if I've mentioned but User:Keith-264/common.js has scripts which can be added. The harverrors one puts a banner on references which don't have footnotes attached, duplinks means you can find duplicated wikilinks etc. Keith-264 (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Horten Harbour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	For all the work you've done to organize the citations for Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act. Thanks! Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having trouble with the wording one of your edits. At Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, you wrote: "In 1907, the completion of the Williamsburg Bridge facilitated the immigration of Jews and Italians from the Lower East Side of Manhattan." I could not check the source because there was no URL to the book. It makes it sound as if the bridge caused the immigration of Jews and Italians. I'm wondering if perhaps the edit should have stated that the bridge made the area more accessible, and that this was followed by an increase in settlement, particularly by Jews and Italians? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magnolia677, here is the original wording from the book: "In 1907, after the completion of the Williamsburg Bridge, a few working-class Jews and Italians emigrated from the Lower East Side of Manhattan." Hope that helps. Feel free to modify the language to what you think would most accurately reflect this statement. Indy beetle (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you actually have any knowledge of/background in this subject, or are you just trying to become noticed? Wikipedia works on the basis of citing regular and ongoing coverage, not outrageous, one-off passing mentions such as wild ones. Again, why are you insisting on putting trivia into the lede, in emboldened text?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rocknrollmancer, whether or not you choose to believe it, I do know some background on the subject. Just because I don't focus on this subject matter in my regular edits doesn't mean I'm clueless. Please be respectful and understand that my edit was made in WP:Good Faith. I honestly have no idea what the basis of your suggestion that I'm "trying to become noticed" is. I understand that the name "wild ones" stems from media hype. But it was used at least three times in British publications, from what I've seen. If the name stuck and became a common identifier, then I think it belongs in the lede along with terms like "leather boys" and "ton-up boys" (and yes, I'm aware ton-up was a very common term with lots of supporting evidence). If you want me to provide additional sources that use the term "wild ones" then I can, and we should bring this to the article's talk page. It would seem that you know plenty more on the subject than I, but you don't own the article, so please try and see what I'm asserting. Indy beetle (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede is supposed to be a summary of what is contained within the article body. It would be better and more-convincing if you were to recognise this, comply with WP:LEAD and develop content within a section instead of launching-in soapboxing, using a tabloid-newspaper's one-off sensationalist headline (probably added by a sub-editor in a whimsical way) alluding to the Marlon Brando film, trying to establish that it was common term by unduly emphasising in bold-face. This is what I mean by 'get noticed' - it worked - twice you have added controversial material into the lede, without sufficient contextual support in the main body for readers' to understand the significance (or not) of inclusion into the lede.

I have no knowledge that Wild Ones was a common term, but I don't know everything. I look forward to more content being added to the body from the way that you suggest you have additional citations, and I'm sure others who equally don't own the article will be interested in developments. If these are modern, then please make it clear that "In 2014, Fred Flintstone wrote...". As I have tried to establish previously, this [modern copycat usage, keyword searches (with high WP SE results) and WP:CIRCULAR] is how Wikipedia is being distorted. Plagiarism was always a part of research and publishing, but now it is largely unregulated.

FYI, the earliest reference to "Ton" (up, or similar) I have in the house is I think 1961, and there is an online scan from 1961 (a substantial publication containing quotes from a famous person with his own Wikipedia Bio-article), but that does not mean I put his other remarks into the lede in boldface, based on one UK press-release. Accordingly, I would request you to develop this article correctly. Please try to understand that ownership of articles is not my criterion, particularly as I have contributed little prose here, and also try to accept that any comments are made in GF, although some might disagree, as is their prerogative.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy 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) 00:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Indy beetle. I want to ask that you withdraw your GA nomination of the above article. Quite frankly, it does not even meet the notability standards for schools and can be nominated for deletion at any time. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES tells us that generally all high schools get kept at AfD and lacking anything extraordinary, all lower schools get redirected to the local school authority's article. It is maybe at best a C level article, but it is poorly sourced and nowhere speaks to anything that even merits its existence, much less its promotion. On good faith I am going to assume that due to your inexperience, you didn't realize elementary schools don't usually have articles on Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John from Idegon, I've read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES before and am aware of the usual treatment of primary education institutions. I consider this particular school notable on the basis that it was historically an all black school, the first school in North Carolina to be named after an African-American educator, and the first Magnet school in Wake County Public School System (with the first Gifted & Talented Certified teachers), the latter being key because WCPSS, the largest school system in NC, was seen as a national model for integrating schools and magnet schools were a way of doing that. I must ask you to elaborate why the article is "poorly sourced," though. I'd appreciate feedback that would help me improve it, then I'll remove the tag. Indy beetle (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little more on what gets articles on lower schools kept: Most are kept for reasons having nothing to do with their existence as a school. The largest group of these are schools which occupy buildings on the NRHP. Others are kept due to architectural distinction indicated by notable awards. Still others are kept due to something historical that occurred there, not necessarily having to do with education. An example of this would be the elementary school President Bush was at when the 9/11 attacks occurred. Pretty much, the only way an elementary school article gets kept on the merits of the school alone is if it has been written up for some reason in peer-reviewed academic journals.

You are confusing notability with importance. Any subject's importance is a relative quality. It means different things to different people. Notability is reasonably objective. It is based on how much has been written about the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources. You must have multiple such sources that discuss the subject in detail. References 1-3 are not independent. Reference 4 is of questionable independence and reliability. Reference 5 is sufficiently reliable and independent, but not detailed and not about this school. Reference 6 is the kind of source you need, but since it only discusses one small aspect of the school's history, is not sufficently detailed on its own. Reference 7 I can't see in detail, but considering the type of publication it is, it is doubtful it would contribute to the notability of the school (if this article were on that fire, it would be a good source for notability for that). Reference 8 is not a reliable source. Reference 9 is a good source but not a discussion in detail about this school. And the award discussed is not of a high enough level to be a consideration in notability (27 schools in Wake County, NC alone recieved awards. Imagine what that extrapolates to nationwide). Reference 10 is not about the school at all. In short, your best references are the two newspaper stories. The main guideline for notability, as I am guessing you know, is WP:GNG. However, businesses and organisations (which would include schools) must reach a higher standard, WP:ORG. That guideline requires all the things GNG does, plus it also requires geographically dispersed sources. In other words some of your sources must either be from out of town or national in nature.

Please realise that every school in the south has an integration back story. Unless a major civil rights event occured there, that's probably a non starter. Being the first at something in the city or county is a non starter. Heck, being first in the country barely is. Your best bet would be if the school is written up in academic journals. Do you have access to JSTOR? That's the place to search academia. Be advised tho that papers are not acceptable sources. Only those that have been vetted and reviewed in trusted journals are.

My inclination is to redirect this article to the school district. If I were to do that, you could revert my edit and the next step would be AfD. However, you seem highly motivated. Dig some more. If you find some more solid sourcing, great! If you can't find anything in a month or so, I'd ask that you redirect it yourself (or let me know). If something turns up later, the redirect can always be undone at that time.

Please don't be offended by my directness. Its my nature to get right to the point. I have a great deal of experience with school articles and am one of the coordinators of Wikiproject Schools. As you may have noticed, I've buffed up the article a bit already. If you need anything, my talk page is thataway. Best of luck. John from Idegon (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One last thing.....please remove the GA template asap. If you think I'm blunt, you really won't like GA review. Depending on who does it, it can range from tedious to brutal. John from Idegon (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's done. Thank you for your help. I will continue digging! Indy beetle (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Sea Raid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've posted the review at Talk:Black Sea Raid/GA1. Please note that I'm going to be out of town for most of the week from this Sunday, so it may take me a little while to respond to your response. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Black Sea Raid you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Sea Raid for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict in Vietnam and at Home, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Sam Sailor 22:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Indy. I just now see that we already have Robert F. Kennedy's remarks at the University of Kansas. Did you notice? Ideas? — Sam Sailor 22:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)Reply[reply]

Hello @Sam Sailor: Those are actually two separate speeches. It's confusing, I know. Both were given the same day, one at Kansas State University and another at the University of Kansas. I suppose it would be possible to merge the articles, if found necessary. The former is notable for being his first campaign appearance, while the latter is important because of his remarks on the GNP. —Indy beetle (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kennedy in Palestine 1948.jpg, 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. Majora (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I happened to notice your new Joseph S. Clark's and Robert F. Kennedy's tour of the Mississippi Delta article (I am the author of the United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs article, which now links to the new one). One thing you can consider with new articles is putting them up for the "Did you know..." section of the Wikipedia main page. This way they will get reviewed by another editor; then once up on the main page for a portion of a day, they will get a couple thousand readers all at once. Some of these readers may also spot corrections or make improvements to the article. So it's a good way to get visibility to new articles on obscure or historical subjects. You can see the rules around "Did you know" articles at WP:DYK and nominations at WP:DYKN. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Joseph S. Clark's and Robert F. Kennedy's tour of the Mississippi Delta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 30 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joseph S. Clark's and Robert F. Kennedy's tour of the Mississippi Delta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that U.S. senators Joseph S. Clark Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy toured the Mississippi Delta in 1967 and made hunger a public issue in the United States as a result? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph S. Clark's and Robert F. Kennedy's tour of the Mississippi Delta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Producing some great articles! Can I interest you in contributing to the new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The award for cooperative and collegial editing on controversial German-Polish topics
		For excellent work on Danzig-related articles and topics. LavaBaron (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

On 1 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Free City of Danzig Government in Exile, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the elected council of the Free City of Danzig Government in Exile was supposedly recognised in secret as the legal successor to the Danzig Senate by Danzig expatriates in 1951 and 1961? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Free City of Danzig Government in Exile. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

politics in history

Thank you for quality articles such as Black Sea Raid, Free City of Danzig Government in Exile and Jean Bolikango, for detailed plans, for uploading non-free historic portraits, page moves, redirects and project tags, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: my comment about Eurocentric sources The Wretched of the Earth and "Category:History books about colonialism" might be helpful. The best documented colonial wars are those of the nazis and the Italian and Japanese fascists, followed by the American post-1945 wars of aggression. It's such a big subject that it might be worth your while to apply a strict geographical, temporal or conceptual limit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Keith-264 for the suggestion, I shall take a look. I agree that some limits will need to be applied for this article to make it coherent and of reasonable length. For example, I do not plan to talk much about wars concerning colonies in antiquity, other than perhaps a brief mention. I am, however, trying to differentiate between colonial wars and imperial wars. I would argue that colonial wars are wars of imperialism, but imperial wars are not always wars of colonialism. The Japanese actions in east Asia and Italian actions in east Africa are undeniable colonial in nature, but Nazi Germany's behaviors aren't so easily classified. From the sources I've gathered, most like to apply a rule whereby a conflict is only "colonial" if committed overseas (the phrase "overseas war" being used as a synonym). This seems like a flimsy rule, to be sure, but so far it seems to be the only one sources have applied. One grey area is the Russian Empire's annexation of states in the Caucasus, which some sources consider colonial. In so far I haven't seen any that list Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union as colonial powers. I have only found a source that, as you know, considers the Portuguese Colonial War and the Falklands War (the latter is disputed) to be the latest colonial wars. As for the 1990 Gulf War, it would seem that the only people who would call it a colonial war are leftist detractors and protesters (perhaps you have a reputable source that says otherwise?). That brings out a whole other issue that should be sorted out: colonial war vs neocolonial war. I would mean to exclude most of the latter from the article, as the label "neocolonial" is often an opinionated accusation more than a historical classification. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I wouldn't necessarily use the overseas criterion since this seems too arbitrary (although it would include Ireland) and the nazi invasions in the east were clearly motivated by colonialism (and other motives to be sure). Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution And The Rise Of The Angloworld (2011) by James Belich (describes Tsarist Russia's Wild East) The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (1991) by Avner Offer is very good on the bonus to Britain of converting the rest of the world into its market garden before 1914 and The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (2007) by Adam Tooze is very good on the colonial aspects of nazi imperialism. Indigenous Peoples and Colonialism: Global Perspectives (2016) by Carlos Gigoux and Colin Samson, The Scramble for Africa (1992) by Thomas Pakenham (a good narrative history), Colonial Wars and The Politics of Third World Nationalism (1994) by Frank Furedi look interesting. Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a few reqphotos to some DRC-centric articles, but the category is a red link. Do we not have one?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Zigzig20s . I'm not really sure what the problem is, but try applying this to subject articles' talk pages:

((Image requested|in=the Democratic Republic of the Congo))

Tell me if you have any luck! -Indy beetle (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See for example Talk:Tenke Fungurume Mine. Could we create a redirect without "the"?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah I see. Stylistically the inclusion of "the" seems to be correct, so I wouldn't think to change it. That is, unless the standard for other countries is to not include a "the". I could create a redirect or move the page accordingly. Do you know what the standard is? At any rate I would also like to bring in WikiProject DRC's other active member, @Brigade Piron. Piron is also more senior in that respect, and I would stand by their advice. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indy beetle is absolutely right that "the" is the standard prefix of the country on Wikipedia. I think it's something to do with the name having been adopted from a river (the Gambia also follows the same convention). Either way, it might be worth asking at the template talk whether the coding could be modified so that it would not be necessary for the user to write "the" every time - something akin to the current WP Africa template that accepts "DRC" as a perimeter. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but could you possibly take a look at the discussion at Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State and leave a comment? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good work on this article!! Would you consider a quick sweep through ONUC#Operations to check whether there are any major errors, and add brief mentions of anything that is missing? Would very much appreciate this!! Season's Greetings!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Buckshot06, I had been drafting it for some time. So far what I've seen of the ONUC page is that it doesn't contain major inaccuracies, but suffers from a distorting lack of information. For example, it says: "Tshombe fled to Rhodesia in 1963 and Katanga was re-incorporated into the Congo." Of course this implies that Tshombe's movement simply dissolved and that he fled the country for the good. In reality, he was back in Katanga two days later and eventually signed an instrument of surrender. So, in short, it is in great need of some extra detail. We need to broaden its focus away from Operation Morthor. I'm about to head out of town for one night, but once I return I'll get on it. Also, I do have a rather measly draft on Operation Unokat which I plan to do some work on. Seeing as its overall time-frame was short and ramifications were more immediate (relevant to the scope of Grandslam) I hope that it won't take me nearly as long to complete. But once I do I can put the relevant info into the ONUC article. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, thanks for the post about joining the DRC group. I work on quite a bit of DRC stuff on Wikipedia and on Commons so please feel free to let me know if there's ever a special project you need help with. Thanks again!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Monopoly31121993! Glad to see that you have joined the group. As I've said above, I'm going out of town for the night, but upon my return I'll look over some tasks and articles that need attention. Aside from photo contributions and transportation, what DRC-related material interests you? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are the big ones but I'm also a fan of politics and history. I'm just not very good at French so if all the sources are in French I won't be much help. But just let me know what pages you want to start working on and I'll try to help out.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Monopoly31121993: I'm not much for French either, so I typically deffer on those sources. I'm likewise a fan of politics and history though, those two subjects being primary focus when it comes to the Congo. I'm particularly fascinated by the Congo Crisis, so that's most of what I'm familiar with. Photos of any kind during that era, be they of political figures, conflict, or the UN mission, are ALWAYS helpful. Something you may want to look into is Rail transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It has a long history extending back to the Free State days, but its history hasn't been well covered on Wikipedia. Articles about the old independence-era parties –CONAKAT and Parti Solidaire Africain– are in need of attention, and there are some that still need to be created. I've also done a lot of work to the article on Antoine Gizenga, but the section on his later life could use some cleanup. Sources I would recommend for political history include the following:

• Coleman, James S.; Rosberg Jr., Carl G., eds. (1964). Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical Africa. University of California Press. LCCN 64-19636. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• LaFontaine, J.S. (1986). City Politics: A Study of Léopoldville 1962–63. American Studies. Cambridge University Press Archive. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kisangani, Emizet Francois (2016). Historical Dictionary of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (4 ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442273160. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lemarchand, René (1964). Political Awakening in the Belgian Congo. University of California Press. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Young, Crawford (2015). Politics in Congo: Decolonization and Independence. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9781400878574. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This is what I can think of. But of course, be free to edit what interests you! -Indy beetle (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]