User talk:Mike McGregor (Can)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] figured out the userboxes

whats next!!!

This user can take down drunks with his bare hands!! (and how!)
This user is my homie


listen buddy, i resent that attack on my professionalism. i did this at home after work while trying to UNWIND after the twinkie fiasco. wasn't there a time on that LC message?? gawd. Rachel Ayres

I know you were joking jeez.. it's almost as though its hard to detect sarcasm over the internet, GAWD! Rachel Ayres

[edit] new rachel section

dude i just read your talk page, this user box thing is pretty out of control. (i hope they don't decide my 'krsone' user box is offensive and non-compliant)(ha)

MIKE! they want to delete my bicycle template!!! nooooooo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_22

[edit] some guys welcome speech

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ That was a canned welcome speech. This isn't. We need more social activists on Wikipedia, you know? DS 02:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Military history tasks

Hi! Just a quick comment: since this template is included in some space-limited places (user pages and portals and so forth), we need to keep the lists reasonably short. If you're adding a stub, could you please also remove one of the existing ones, so that the total number of articles doesn't increase? Thanks! —Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank You Mr McGregor

Very glad to see your efforts in the Battle of Hill 70' page. In all the brutal(and futile) battles of WWI this little battle gets pushed into the footnotes and forgotten. It is nice to see someone as young as you showing an interst in bringing the facts out for everyone to see. My own personal interest in this page...My great uncle Nathaniel Slater was killed at Hill 70. He left no descendants. Kudos for your work so far. Take Care ~Mr Pyles.

[edit] RE: Canadian military history

Hi there! Thanks for your note, which I've moved to my talk page. I'd be glad to participate and will – as well with enhancing Wp articles/content dealing with the current state of the Canadian military – but I cannot guarantee a speedy turnaround on anything these days. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


BZ on the Boys AT rifle - don't know how I & everyone else missed it - not bad for a peacenik ;-) Bridesmill 22:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer project

Hi, and welcome to the beer project! Little known fact: the founder is from London ;)

Hope to see you around! Feel free to get in touch any time you want, and I'll look forward to seeing some of your beery contributions. (Canadian beer is a decent starting place...)

All the best! --Daniel11 20:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You're a screw

Once you are done defacing my page you should teach me how to do those box things... you know, the ones that say that you like beer and pillaging...

Talk to you soon homeboy. Rachel Ayres 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

WikiProject Military history The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here.
The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy e 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Battles of the War of 1812 (Northern Theaters)

As per Admin request at talk page.

Discuss Here

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War of 1812 category discussion

You said: "Delete At least get rid of the word "Theaters" which is unacceptable bias in a category about a war between Britain and the United States. CalJW 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)" Can you expand on why the word "theaters" is bias in this context? I'm not trying to be argumentitive or anything, I'm just not too sure what you refering to... thanks!Mike McGregor (Can) 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Because the British spelling is "theatre" CalJW 13:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

I don't wanna overdo it or anything, so here's just a brief note thanking you for supporting me in the WikiProject Military history coordinator elections. Cheers, and I hope I can please as Assistant Coordinator! --Loopy e 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinators

Sorry I am late! Been away watching the Superbowl. I'm not good at thank-you messages, but still, thank you for supporting me, I'll do my best. :D If you ever need help, you know who to ask! -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

Dear Mike: I'm confused what the meaning was of your edit of my userpage was for. Lawyer2b 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh. Thanks.  :-) Lawyer2b 06:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Template:User participant userbox war

Thanx for telling me - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC / MarkSweep

  • Please stop by Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MarkSweep regarding user's recent actions. Thank you! Sct72 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Canmilhist.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canmilhist.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok at first glance, one possible snag though, that tag says that it's a photograph (wich it clearly is not) and the image was published before 1949 (as a WWII poster this is clearly good) and that it's not subject to crown copyrght. Since such a propaganda poster would generaly be issued by the government wouldn't that mean that it would in fact be under crown copyright? This is uncharted territory for me though. I'll post a querry on Wikipedia talk:Copyright and see if anyone there can shed some light on this. --Sherool (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well this image is aparently something of a "special case" (it's PD in Canada, EU, Japan and other nations who implement the "shorter term" clause of the copyright treaty + in the US because of some technicality, but possebly not elsewhere), and we don't have a spesific tag for it, but I used the {{PD-because}} tag to insert the relevant info. Man this copyright stuff can make your head explode sometimes... Anyway it should be ok now. --Sherool (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Well one last thing: Do you have some better source info? Like a link to the actual page where you found the image or something like that. I browsed some poster galleries at a canadian war museum site but I didn't find the one in question. --Sherool (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notices

The idea behind task forces was that they would be informal; I'm not sure if introducint userboxes (and especially a separate notice tag?) is the right idea here. —Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Task force

I've created {{WPMILHIST Canadian military history task force}} for you; is it what you had in mind? —Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox template created by me was deleted by an unknown vandal

No-Marxism template [[1]] has been deleted; I regard it as pure vandalism. If anti-monarchism, anti-gun law, anti-imperialism infoboxes are allowed, I don't see a reason why infobox depicting negation of Marxism (the ideology whose results are Stalin, Mao and Pol Poth) is not allowed by certain comrades? I suggest taking necessary measures. (If the content or expression of such a view was not wholly acceptable, I would have modified the source a bit) Constanz - Talk 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What is more, i could find 'no voting process for deletion (unlike deleting template anti-fascism, which was at least discussed).

[edit] Reply to question

Re: this question -- user:Danny might be able to answer it for you. Raul654 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop it

Please stop disrupting my talk page by pasting ridiculously long discussions. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

lol, he's doing it to you too? I borrowed your insurgent userbox, hope that's ok with you. If not, feel free to remove it. We really need to organize though. User: God of War has been very vocal, and we need everyone else that has been vocal to really make sure eveyone hears about this. I have a message to the wikicommunity on my user page, and I suggest as many people as possible start writing their own. This is ridiculous. Viva la resistencia! Viva la revolucion! The Ungovernable Force 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Mike,

Within the next 24 hours, I will submit an Rfc against the admins who continuously speedy userboxes without consensus, and whatever else. If there's anything you think should be included on there, please let me know. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Prob

The Arbcom can be frustrating to be sure. No prob on that before. Karmafist 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

Mike, you may think you're on some kind of crusade here, but this is not so. The out-of-process recreation of inflammatory boxes has to stop now. They're only fanning the flames and dragging other users into this misguided "they're censoring free speech" mindset. You're free within the boundaries set by WP:NOT, WP:NPA etc. to express your views on your user page. You don't need any templates for that. Nor do you need colorful tables which squeeze opinions on complex issues into 15 words or less, but that's up to you. The Template namespace, however, is reserved for encyclopedic activities. The basic goal of the project, namely building an encyclopedia, is non-negotiable. Moreover, you want to keep the polemics to an absolute minimum. Think this over, and decide for yourself whether you can live with it or not. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked you to stop harrasing me once, now I'm asking you again. I've tried to open a diologue with you already regarding the Bush templates, but you responded by making a vailed threat to ban me, deleted discussions I initiated on Request for Unprotect, attacked me as a "troll" to an admin and vandalized my user-subpage. I will not be making any more comments on your talk page, I ask that you do the same here and DO NOT alter MY user-space. Also, please do not delete any more of my comments in these debates, strike them out, etc. I've had enough of you. Any thing further and I'll explore my recourse options on wiki Mike McGregor (Can) 17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately your user space does not belong to you and is subject to most of the same general guidelines that apply to all of Wikipedia. Posting deliberately inflammatory comments on your user pages is no different from posting them elsewhere. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mark, We're done here. What part of that don't you get? Stop posting messeges to me and stop vandalizing my page and subpages. Stop WP:HARassing me. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Template:User-AmE-0

Hello Mike: I believe that you are a bit mistaken, as the only action that I performed on the template was protecting it against continual recreation, and by adding the {{deletedpage}} template. If you check the log of actions of this template, it has been deleted no less than seven times, by administrators Kelly Martin, HappyCamper, Celestianpower, Doc glasgow, R. fiend, and Ral315. I do not wish to override the clear decisions of these six administrators, and also the wishes of Jimbo Wales concerning divisive and inflammatory templates. Doing so would be a mistake on my part, and would constitute wheel warring. Regards, Bratschetalk 17:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the template whilst the debate is under way. However, I think people are voting against good faith in simply voting keep without actually deciding if the userbox is detrimental to the project. I hope that you can discuss the matter accordingly. Bratschetalk 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This template should never have been restored since it violates established naming guidelines. In the unlikely event that it is kept, it should be renamed instead of being restored under its old, non-compliant name. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developing a Wikipedia essay re: disclosing user POVs

User:Rogue_9/UBXGOOD Will move this to project namespace once it takes form. Since you've been very vocal in support of using userboxes to disclose POV and therefore help the project, I thought you might be interested in contributing to the essay. Feel free. Rogue 9 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The en-me-1

From what I gather, the writer of this box picked words out of the language that they thought might be what they are trying to say. Here, they are writing what looks like "English is gently and greater than was necessity." This is of course unrecognizable in the language. I will correct what was being said for clarity. JustinLillich 02:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please comment

Please comment on my counteroffer on the talk page of Doc's userbox proposal. --Dragon695 06:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] insurgent userbox

Where did it go? --UVnet 22:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • it's back until Sweep deletes it again...Mike McGregor (Can) 23:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • sweep? --UVnet 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
-MarkSweep, he's an admin. Mike McGregor (Can) 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your request

I asked the friendly folks at Esperanza if they could help you with your situation [2]. I don't know what can be done about this, honestly. Any formal grievances against MarkSweep seemed to be ignored by anyone with authority, and attempts to communicate with him are generally met with incivility or contempt. Maybe the Esperanzians have some ideas. --Fang Aili 20:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry dude, I haven't been on here to edit for a while. Certain admins have almost drove me away! But I decided I wasn't going to participate in The Great Userbox War any longer, as that time could be better used for maintaining the Wik. Who needs the stress, right? Good luck with the "Esperanzians" - love the Insurgent Userbox! Sct72 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

I'd like your thoughts on a brainstorm I've tried to articulate here: User:Leifern/Adminwatch idea. And feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 16:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not restore copyright violating images onto your user page, please

[3]. Sorry if my edit summary was unclear, but this image is a copyright violation. Please don't restore it to your userpage.--Gmaxwell 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

You asked what the template user 'the game' was about. The Game is a game in which the purpose of the game is to forget the game. If you remember the game, you lose the game. Therefore you cannot win the game because to win the game you have to think of the game, and if you think of the game you lose the game. It goes on for the rest of your life, and one of the less enforced rules is that, if you lose, you have to say 'I lost the Game', and explain it to the people nearby. Now read the whole explanation again, and you'll understand it.

I'm not quite sure why the article was deleted in the first place, but it was, and now they want to delete the userbox as well. Daniel (☎) 16:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it lacked a verifiable source. (I don't think that its a strong enough reason, but whatever.) There isn't really a reason why the userbox is up for deletion. --Anaraug 21:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
You can find more about it if you're so interested at http://www.losethegame.com/ (not a site I'm affiliated with, but it contains everything that was in the Wikipedia article almost verbatim). - dharmabum 08:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Gharaib pictures

Sorry that it took me several days to respond. My personal, if somewhat uninformed, opinion is that you're probably never going to get the prisoner's names because FOIA (b)(6) allows the US government to withhold "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and (b)(7)(c) allows the government to withhold "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes... to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The Bush adminstration has been very agressive about invoking the FOIA exemptions. Salon.com has published over 200 photos, and has provided the captions that these photos have on documents from Army's Criminal Investigation Division that were apparantly leaked to salon. I've used those direct captions to describe a lot of the pictures that I have posted on wikimedia commons. I suppose this raises a POV issue, because some would argue that relying on the word of and part of the US Army for information about these photos is essentially buying into a white-wash, but I think that they probably have no reason to lie on internal documents about who is who in the photos. I'll try to help you out, but I will probably be pretty slow with it, because I have a lot going on in my (real) life right now. --Descendall 22:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006
Project news
From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals
  • Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy e 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Q at the VP

There are a few main solutions to this sort of problem. If it is only part of the article that is copied, just blank that portion. If it is the whole article:

  • WP:CSD Articles #8 provides for speedying some very blatant copyright infringement
  • WP:PROD or WP:CP for all other problem pages.

Hope this helps, Christopher Parham (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

    • BTW, make sure that the article is in fact us copying someone else rather than the other way around; there are a lot of mirrors and other content-users who are not very conscientious about maintaining the GFDL. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The Saratoga page is alright, although if you think it needs cleanup regular tags can be used. Check out Special:Whatlinkshere/Dictionary_of_American_Naval_Fighting_Ships for many, many similar pages -- we regularly import the whole text of public domain encyclopedia articles into Wikipedia, so this is pretty much par for the course. The Lake Chicago source does not particularly appear to be public domain (there's no federal government markings or logos on the page). It would be a good target for WP:PROD, and if anyone can confirm the public-domain status of the page hopefully they would see it in the five day period. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good joke

I like the two templates you nominated for undeletion at WP:DRV/U. Very funny. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm trying to assume good faith, but are you honustly tellign me you don't think these userboxes meet the T1 criterion? You don't think they are divisive in this community? You don't think they are inflammatory? Seriously? --Doc ask? 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox consensus

The 'consensus' I refer to is the 61% support received by the userbox policy proposal in the recent straw poll. While 61% is obviously not enough to make a proposal into binding policy, IMHO it is sufficient to endorse the interpretation of T1 (which I accept is an ambiguous mess, blame Jimbo for that not me) in this way. Cynical 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer cats & kittens

Hi Mike. It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson and supported by User:Syrthiss that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. This proposal has been supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections, free beer and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

I'm done with userboxes, so I have moved User:Guanaco/consensus to User:Mike McGregor (Can)/consensus. If you want me to delete it, you should hurry, because I may not be able to much longer. —Guanaco 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Seeing as the matter up for review is the deletion/undeletion of a template, isn't the question of freedom of expression wholly tangential? One can still declare their biases on their userpage without using templates. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kellestine2clean.jpg

Hey I just noticed you added that photo of Kellestine to Shedden massacre. That's a pretty cool (scary?) photo to get.. especially considering this guy's under arrest for first degree murder now. Kudos to you ;-) Mrtea (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was across the street with a long lense ; ) Mike McGregor (Can)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War I

The World War I task force is now active! Kirill Lokshin 13:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May userbox policy poll

Hi. You're a supporter of userboxes, and there's currently a policy poll going on about userboxes that might solve the speedy deletion issue. I encourage you to vote if you haven't already. Thank you. Dtm142 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 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. —ERcheck @ 00:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Conflicts in Canada

Please read what the +cat is about, before reverting articles, thank you SirIsaacBrock 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have created Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada and added it to the +cat this should diffuse the situation and keep issues from arising in the future SirIsaacBrock 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Homeboy

I appreciate the fact that you consider me "Neat Stuff on Wiki"! :-) --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 20:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Page

Hey. Just to let you (and all you Canadians out there!) know I have started a new page on Canada's involvement in the First World War (Military History of Canada). I know your really interested into Canadian military history and stuff so I just wanted to bring that to your attention. It still needs some work on it so if you could help clean up some of content and format of the article, that would be great. Canadia 9:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your note and, also, for arranging my totd box so that it does not foul the view of my userboxes. I must confess that it did not obstruct the view on my own monitor but, with hindsight, I should have made sure that this would be the case for everyone. Thank you for resolving this for me. It really is appreciated. Regards -- Alias Flood 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Urban warfare, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Commons

discussion was closed, archived at the very same link. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [4] SilkTork 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 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.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Conflicts in Canada

[5]

3. Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories

-- Same would apply to Caledonia land dispute is in Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada, so it should not also be in Category:Conflicts in Canada. Cordially What123 09:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops... looks like you just got blocked... Want some more? Just come on back... Mike McGregor (Can) 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Although this user's not a vandal, the principal expressed here is equally applicable when dealing with banned users. Good call on this sockpuppet Mike McGregor. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CfD

Hi Mike,

...I'm not too sure if I listed this right, if some one could make any needed changes and drop me a line on my talk page, it would help me learn more about the 'pedia!

I use
{{subst:cfr2|OldCategoryName|NewCategoryName|text=Reason}} ~~~~
to insert proposals at WP:CfD; an introduction outlining other (more up-to-date) possibilities is given here. Best wishes, David Kernow 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [6]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Image:MaskedIcon.jpg

Hi, at Image:MaskedIcon.jpg, you wrote "I release this for use on Wikipedia and for other non-commercial uses", but you licensed it under CC-BY-SA, which permits commercial uses. Because Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, images must be free to be re-used for commercial purposes. If you'd like the image to stay, then please change the statement on the image description page. (I see you already reverted someone else's removal of the "non-commercial clause".) But if you really don't want the image used for commercial purposes, then please tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-noncom}}. Thanks! User:Angr 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 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 -- 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rather belated reply

Hello.

It was during my offline month that you left a message on my talk page regarding a suspected sockpuppet of SirIsaacBrock. To answer your last question first, of whether I'm a good person to address your IsaacBrock related administrative needs - well, last month I wasn't. Usually, I'm online for several hours every day, so please feel free to ask in the future. It appears the sockpuppet in question has been blocked indefinintely, so I trust that situation is adequately resolved; if not, I offer my belated assistance. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiny spelling error

And I would never, never change a box on somebody's user page. So:

Flying Spaghetti Monster This user does not necessarily believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but finds it more likely then Intelligent Design.

It's "than" rather than "then".

And I love your user page.--Ggbroad 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Glacial lakes.jpg

Cool map you added to Glacial Lake Maumee et al. I found the illustration when I was starting the Lake Maumee article, but must have overlooked the fact that it came from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May I suggest tagging it with "PD-USGov-Military-Army-USACE" template rather than the less detailed "PD-USGov?" Glad to know that someone on the other side of the big ponds is on top of this. Peace! -- Cuppysfriend 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitables

I should have mentioned this when I made the update you requested on the Canadian Forces casualties page, but take a gander at Help:Table and then mess around with them in WP:Sandbox. It might help you figure out with how tables work in wikipedia. --Bobblehead 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Surrender of Montreal (1760)"

You seem to be a pretty reasonable guy, so I figured I'd raise the issue with you here: What possible sense does it make to have an article (let alone a Battlebox plastered with the obnoxious descriptor, "British victory") about a city surrendering without a fight? What information can you impart, which details can you elaborate, what discussion can you hold, that could possibly lift this page beyond stub status? You could probably describe, in broad terms, Lévis's military options, the British campaign plan, the situation in France, and the process of surrender—but honestly, how many paragraphs could you scrape together? What's being said here that wouldn't be more relevant over at Seven Years' War, French and Indian War, François Gaston de Lévis, Duc de Lévis, and a dozen other places? Merely advertising the surrender of Montreal, while I'm sure it appeals to the Anglo-American patriot who refuses to conceive of the Seven Years' War (and indeed the rest of modern history) as anything besides the rightful triumph of Anglo-Germanic martial prowess over the weak, effeminate, corrupt, and cowardly French people, doesn't make for a viable article. Let me know what you propose.

(PS: for years now the French and Indian War articles have been under constant attack by editors seeking to marginalize French military success while promoting and aggrandizing British victories. If my point of view seems a bit extreme it's only because I've been fighting this nonsense tooth and nail almost single-handedly.) Albrecht 03:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point (maybe deliberately). I take no issue with the ratio of British/French victories as they stand in the historical record. Obviously, the people who go as far as to make up battles in order to alter the balance in favour of one combatant, i.e. with delightful fiction like "Battle of Montreal (1760)," are the ones with the "agenda." I notice you haven't said a word to justify the article based on its content, as requested above. Your talk of "blanking and redirecting," furthermore, is pretty disingenuous—we're talking about a stub that's never had any content beyond "Hey, guess what? Montreal surrendered, Brits kick ass." Nice red herring, but not very helpful. And asking me to stop being "disruptive" and "not constructive" is an equally interesting response considering the fact that here I am discussing the problem with you on your Talk page while not altering the article in any way. I think the plain and simple fact is the article doesn't stand on its merits. If you're somehow convinced otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you explained why instead of attacking thing's I've done in the past. Albrecht 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/General weaponry discussion

I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force, which is the active page; the other one is just an old archive that's kept around for bookkeeping purposes. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 23 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 - 19:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mozambique article, and your thoughts

I don't see why there shouldn't be a project on african colonialism and independence wars. If you forgive the slightly selfishness of this idea, perhaps if we both work to create a good atricle on mozambique's war of independence, then it would make a decent article to rally more support for your project idea. I'm perfectly willing to help out any way I can, let me know what you think!--SGGH 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tarnak Farm incident

I went ahead and moved the article. Let me know if you need anything else! -- Merope 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Barnstar

The Photographer's Barnstar
For your efforts on the Caledonia land dispute, photographic and otherwise. TheMightyQuill 01:21, 23 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 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mozambican war of independence

I have nominated the above article for collaboration, hoping to both further the creation of the article and to help you curry support for your good colonial african idea. If you're still interested in setting up this wikiproject then its probably a good idea to add your support, many thanks.--SGGH 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African military history task force

hi there.

I just saw your post on the Military History Wiki Project about Mozambiquan War of Independence, and I wanted to get your opinion on the possibility of eventually setting up a Project Task-Force dealing with African Military history. Back in August, I suggested a task-force dealing with the declian of colonialism in Africa and African independance wars, post-colonial African civil-wars, and wars between African states. The Idea didn't go too far, but maybe we can keep it in mind for the future. Mike McGregor (Can) 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


The task force has been founded. Feel free to join: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/African military history task force

Greatings Wandalstouring 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Battle Honours

Hey man,

I just wanted to commend you for your work on the Canadian Battle Honours page, I think stuff like this should be recognized. You'll notice I've added battle honours won by the Air Force and the Navy. I do want to ask, have there been any battle honours awarded since the Gulf War (Kosovo, Afghanistan)? And is there anything on the Commander In Chief Unit Citation? Sbmcmull

[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 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/k/User_talk%7EMike_McGregor_%28Can%29_91a5.html"