User talk:Fix Bayonets!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Sons of Confederate Veterans Wikipedia article

The only way to prove what the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ official position on an issue currently is, is to reference official authorized statements of the SCV. The SCV’s definition of itself and its own reasons for existing and ultimate goals should be included in any Wikipedia article discussing the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

As Rlquall stated, "[t]he SCV Wikipedia article should not be a series of links to SPLC articles or sites about how dangerous it is, or a series of links to white supremacist sites."[1] The SPLC has an agenda, which should be obvious to anyone examining this issue from a neutral standpoint. In the SCV Wikipedia article, facts should be presented, not speculations from groups with a known agenda antagonistic to the SCV.

The SCV’s official declarations state that the Sons of Confederate Veterans is a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved.[2] The SCV has ongoing programs at the local, state, and national levels which offer members a wide range of activities which include preservation work, marking Confederate soldier's graves, scholarly publications, historical re-enactments, and regular meetings to discuss the military and political history of the War Between the States and issues affecting Southern heritage.[3]

The fact that the SCV declares itself to be a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period can’t be refuted.[4] The fact that the SCV has ongoing programs at the local, state, and national levels which offer members a wide range of activities which include preservation work, marking Confederate soldier's graves, scholarly publications, historical re-enactments, and regular meetings to discuss the military and political history of the War Between the States and issues affecting Southern heritage can’t be refuted.[5]

The SCV does not advocate the viewpoint that slavery had no role whatsoever in the War Between the States. At the same time, the SCV does not aggrandize or overstate the role which the slavery issue actually did play in the War, as many others do.

--Fix Bayonets! 21:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)(with special thanks to those who assisted)

[edit] Honorable Service

I'm sorry that we can't get some people to see that many people, including my great-great-great grandfather and I'd guess yours, or some other male ancestor, as well, served the Cause as honorable soldiers because their home was being invaded. My father-in-law, who was in the Battle of the Buldge and then left for dead by the Germans at Malmedy, never felt any ill-will toward the honorable Germans who fought in defense of their Fatherland because it was being invaded. Most of them were not Nazi Party members and were fighting to save home, not to help the Fuerher establish the New World Order, and I think that he realized that if he had been a German he would have been doing the same thing. I think that part of the problem is that the rest of the U.S. has never lost a "home game"; those of us who are both Southern and of Celtic ancestry understand all too well what it is to lose control of our home to people of a different culture and ideas, as do American Indians (another ancestral group in my case). The rest of the country's lack of empathy to the Cause is less in my opinion a "politically correct" desire to be seen as free of ties to evils of racism, for it far predates the "PC" movement. It is instead a desire not to empathize, or even want to empathize, with "losers", for as George Patton, Jr., said, "The American people love winners and will not tolerate a loser," which is why most non-Southern Americans don't understand our making heroes of "Stonewall" Jackson and R. E. Lee, despite their heroic lives and actions, because their "side" ultimately lost. Denying who you are is the biggest loss, however. Lee and Jackson understood this. You do too, I think, and I am always trying. As you have said, there are some wonderful people in the SCV (I know several) and some scoundrels (I know a couple of them, too), and there always will be in every group large enough to contain that touchstone of the 21st century, diversity. (Note that diversity within the SCV is unwelcome by its opponents, who would rather demonize it all as a bunch of neo-Nazi lunatics.) I even know some SPLC supporters who are not Trotskyists. There's even diversity there. Anyway, if a group defines itself as a patriotic society, it is certainly up to its detractors to disprove this with evidence, and "I don't think it is," or, "It isn't my definition of patriotic," is NOT this evidence. Regards, Rlquall 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] federalism

Sorry about that. I just checked into it a little more. My bad. Disquietude 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCV NPOV?

I took the liberty of removing the NPOV tag from the article on SCV as it seems well written; and the only critics are a radical fringe group with a communist agenda to push (SPLC). L0b0t 13:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
• Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 16:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userbox

Interesting. There's already an ACW userbox (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/User WPMILHIST American Civil War task force), but you're free to create your own version if you prefer a different design, of course. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I like the newer userbox better, simply because the two flags are so much more iconic than the map. Reminds me of the cover of Catton's book. Stilgar135 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am here to apologize

Dear Fix Bayonets!

Please accept my apology for concluding that you had deleted a message I posted on your talk page. I regret the error.

Alarob 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I have discovered an error in the "Click here to start a new message thread" link. It omits the space in Fix Bayonets!

[edit] Civility

Please discuss changes when they are reverted, rather than reverting again and finally saying "admins next". The admin is here, and he's telling you to stop. --Golbez 03:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Sir: I appreciate your having the honor about you to tell me when you are invoking my thoughts, ideas, etc., in arguing your viewpoint, and hope that you will continue to inform me when you do so. I am sickened by those who assault Southern heritage, both from the PC-driven crowd that wants to portray all Confederates as slaveholding Neanderthals who could never for a second have had one honorable motive or done one honorable thing, and also from those who feel that they are somehow honored by being linked with present-day race baiters and radical purported "Christians" who views and values seem vastly different from anything with which I have ever heard as being from the Carpenter of Galilee. I think that the descent into factionalism of the SCV is an unfortunate fact, and while it needs to be noted, it cannot and should not be noted only from the side of the SPLC and others who would love for the SCV to quietly go away after they have demonized it so that they could then take credit for its demise. The SPLC's views of the SCV are perteinent because the SPLC has managed to do such brilliant self-promotion as to raise its profile to that of a credible national group and many wish to hear what its judgements are with regard to the SCV. As long as these are not the sole views of the SCV (or anything else of importance) presented, I have no problem with this at all. Have you written a version of the "Factionalization" section yet that you feel to be NPOV and hence suitable for presentation should the article come to the arbitration process? I would love to hear your ideas on what balance would consist of in this area! Regards, Rlquall 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the editors-in-question are flying their true colors, as they continue to ignore any attempt to discuss the issues or establish any parameters for the proper treatment of the draft factionalization section.

--Black Flag 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N.T.A.C.W.

Please examine this ACW article. In an effort to shorten the sub-section, I eliminated some of your prior edits. I do not believe the removed text in any way effects the sub-section or detracts from the evidence you provided. Cheers!--Black Flag 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for George Allen

Started here--Fix Bayonets! 22:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For your information

I started a user conduct rfc here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[6] made on November 7, 2006 to George Allen_(U.S. politician)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)