User talk:XKiller59

Iam XKiller59, I love history and I want to help this wiki grow and help by sharing my knowledge to every person, Iam full English and I would need to be constantly editing the more cientific words into basic words, I would try to advance the chain of command editing pages from WW1 and many topics. You can contact me through here so if you have any concerns regarding my edits or creations please ask.

Battle of The Masurian Lakes

Please see the note on the talk page of the article Battle of The Masurian Lakes Thanks! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for pages and improvements

I had done some research over many pages that dont appear on The Simple English Wiki, which in my opinion can either create or add depth to many articles this is a small list. I am willing to due this pages but I suggest that if some one is going to due this articles, they would have to due a small investigation of the topic so that the article can be dealt for once and for all (that there is not going to be needing to have a constant history of changes). This list may change!!!

Here go´s the list.

Battle of Lake Trasimene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Trasimene Needs a Porper article Armistice of Thessalonica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_with_Bulgaria Battle of Trabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trebia Needs a proper article Second Punic War Improve Carthage Imrpove First Punic War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War Needs a proper article Etruscan civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization Romulus and Remus improve Caucasus Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Front_%28Russian_Republic%29 Needs a proper article

I finally found it

I have found the book that revealed me all the information of WW1 heres a link to futher sources links, whatever. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022515 --Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Expeditionary Force

I placed an 'under construction' tag on this article based on your hidden note. This should let you finish without it being patrolled and/or edited. Please remove the tag when the article is finished. You might want to read Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia. Also, if you copy the article into your sandbox next time, you can edit it all you want before releasing it as an article. Hope this helps. Rus793 (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tag Rus, I read the link and I think I did most of the steps but going to continue editing later. Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether "Brazil in World War II" might not be a better title. I think it's interesting, because few people knew that any South American country had taken sides against Germany. And Brazil had a number of German-founded areas, too. Anyway, if you agree about the title, just move the page. It won't cause any problems. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It's that The Expeditionary force was just the Italian support, while the navy and airforce help the Brazil get to Italy they had to help the Allies win in the Atlantic. I think that the Expeditionary force shoud be Brazil on Italy, while " Brazil's invomvement on WW 2" shoud be the air and naval support the Brazilians gave to the Atlantic effort and the major actions on Italy, while the Expeditionary Force shoud be how they got recruited where they fought how they served, etc.

If you wonder why there is no signature, it's because this freaking IPhone doenst have the signature thingy.

I have to agree with @Macdonald-ross on the title: "Brazil in World War II". While the 'Brazilian Expeditionary Force' might make up much of the article, Brazil's naval and air operations would seem to deserve their own sections. It keeps it (forgive the term) simple to keep it all in one article as we can't know what exactly a reader might be looking for about Brazil and WWII. The 'Background' section seems more appropriate to a title of Brazil in World War II. It also goes well with another article on Brazil at enwiki, namely "Brazil during World War I" (or here, "Brazil in World War I"). That would be another worthwhile article to bring here and you can move the WWI information into that article. You have to think about how a reader might search for information on Brazil's participation in either war. Oh, and before you throw your iPhone, this might help with finding the tilde (~) character: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4244317?tstart=0 Rus793 (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well you are right, I hate the user who banned me from the English Wiki because I vandalized the Chayanne page and changes it's dates for the past 5 years, but you know it's not your problem is my. Well I think I will have to change the name today or tomorrow. Dont worry about the I Phone, it's not a big deal I will just add them later in the day, by the way how due I rename a page or due I start a new one???

No, you don't want to start a new one in this case. Renaming a page is pretty easy. In the upper right menu bar on your page (Read | Change | View History | More | etc.) click on More. The only choice is the Move command, click it (a page move is how you rename a page). Enter the new title in the first box, then give a short reason (like: “more accurate name” or whatever the reason is). Or if you want I can rename it for you.

Also, there is another way to sign your discussions without using the tilde (~) characters. You can use the Template:Unsigned. For example: {{subst:unsigned | user name or IP | time, day month year (UTC)}}. Just add your username and the time/date of your edit which you can get from View history Rus793 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok so that is what move means, you learn new things everyday, it's done the bame is Brazil during World War Two. Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to move this off the new pages list, I went ahead and patrolled the article. I did some simplifying, rearranging based on the new title, and added source citations. Feel free to continue editing. You found a very interesting subject here. I hope you continue to create more articles like this one. Good editing. Rus793 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I was just too lazy to make it up to the new name, going to add the logo latter in the day. Thanks for the Help Rus793 :) Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind with the logo, I am so impress with your work on the page I think I will just spend another 10 minutes reading and editing on the page. Good Work you impress me :) Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You are quite welcome!!!

You are quite welcome, sir! Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help with your finely written articles. ciao!!! Carriearchdale 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will remember to ask you

Does anyone whant to help me with WW1 articles???

I am going to begin to improve or create WW1 Articles, using both Wiki Articles and Video information. The videos I am going to try to use information are the videos from the channel The Great War and The Fog of War. This channels have some usefull information, The Fog of War has WW1 documentaries and The Great War is the only one on Youtube which weekly produce WW1 videos about the events 100 years ago. I hope I can count on you to help me, but I warn you there is about a day and a half of video tape in those two channels, I do not ask for people to see all the videos, but if you due you have earned my respect. IhopeI can count on you on the lines of the mighty German/Russian/British/French/Austrian/Serb/Ottoman/Italian/Etc Army. Just a little way of improving/learning/and make it fun watching Documentaries of WW1. Here are the links

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFogOfWar2014

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar

Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi XKiller

I noticed you intended to use YouTube for source citations. I would suggest you don't for a few reasons. First, YouTube isn't considered a reliable source. The series by the BBC would probably be an exception if they were unaltered by whoever posted them. But you'd have to be sure. In actual history, there are gaps between facts. There are always things that remain unknown. This doesn't work well for documentaries and videos which are written and produced for their entertainment value. They have a story to tell. Producers of a video series will often mention the many sources they used to get their story. This is not the same as saying the videos were written by experts on the subject. Books, on the other hand, are often written by expert historians. They may not have much entertainment value, but that is not what they were written for. For an encyclopedia that is trying to remain authoritative, it is important to use the best sources we can. Watching the videos to get ideas for articles is certainly a good idea. But I'd suggest written sources instead of videos for source citations. Books on World War I subjects are in libraries, at Google Books and the Internet Archive. There are also journal articles (I have access to quite a few) and web sites that meet the criteria for reliable sources.

You might think about the scope of your projects too. It is always easier to start with major battles, work up to major campaigns, then theatres of the war. You will have fewer red links this way. Also, when you write an article, say, for a battle, you always learn more about it in the process of researching that battle. As you write articles on campaigns that include these battles, you understand the campaigns much better. Anyway, give these ideas some thought. I may not be able to watch that many of the videos, but I may be able to help with some of the research. Let me know if I can help. Rus793 (talk) 18:46, 6 December a2014 (UTC)

Well I wasnt intending to use all the sources just a few, and The Great War uses the British Pathe and they know alot. But The Fog of War mostly uses miscellaneous documents and the BBC documentaries are from 1986, so pretty old. I just wanted to use some of the facts to put them on the article, to add some background and cool facts that we woudnt find on another place, and also we know from where we got the sources to make it easier. And yes I will need you're as everyone capable of having a keyboard and WW1 knowledge is welcome. I hope we can improve the greatest event that defines the history of both Mankind and Earth for the next 100 years. Hope I can count on you Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing, if the facts are correct they should be easy to verify with print sources. Let me know when you get started or need anything. Rus793 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok going to begin in 1914 with lets say the Schieflen Plan or whatever the typing is. And from there walk over to the end of the war. The plan 1. Major Battles 2. Campaign 3. Characters 4. Armament 5. And from there we have a long time to think. :) So thanks for the support :) Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you get the email I sent you? Rus793 (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Which one??? Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought I only sent one. The subject line was "Simple English Wikipedia e-mail". Hopefully it wasn't mistaken for spam. Rus793 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand why all my important Emails go to spam, you're article almost killed me in embarrasment, i just feel so lazy some days but if I wasnt lazy I woud probably add all the Ypres knowledge I have, It woud have alot of information. I think we can add the original plan, the modifications, the background, the rival plans, how it was carry, why was it abandoned, and maybe the thing in WW2 when the Allies believed the Shieflen plan (excuse my barbaric typing) was the German plan and decided to put all the troops on belgium, and when Case Yellow was carried out the Allies were pushed into Dunkirk. So I think I will read you're improvements on the Scottish battle to get an idea. Thanks for the help Long Live XKiller59 (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Try emailing me at my userpage. I've been adding information to Ypres slowly to give you an opportunity to edit also. I added more today (after being approved for HighBeam and trying it out). Perhaps via email we can better organize who would do what to get an article organized. I did a 'Prelude' section today. The next section would logically be about the battle, followed by the Gas sections already there. Let me know if anything doesn't work for you. If you have books with information on the battle, let's include them as source citations where appropriate. Rus793 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok I am going to Begin to email about the battle. The article is looking alright I suggest you see this video for some extra information about the Canadian Perspective I will edited later to add a little into the Prelude, my good WW1 book has some good information about the prelude that could be use full on the Article.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Ynvu6AE0k

Ok My plan

Ok as you can see your biggest Nightmare is back :D Anyway´s I expected more changes to the WW1 pages, we must use Videos and the Internet to give our readers the best knowledge, it´ time to grab the Bull from it´s horns and beat it. What to know more just literally Talk on the Talk page. I am ready to improve this Wikipedia lets make WW1 a Simple Topic for everyone. --XKiller59 at your service (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)