User talk:UberCryxic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ghirla | talk 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, if you think that you would push your agenda by revert warring, you are wrong. Thousands of historians for several generations disputed the battle's outcome before you and me. Don't invent the bycicle. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Take care, Ghirla | talk 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's great that your aim is not revert warring. I moved your comments to Talk:Battle of Borodino where more editors can see them. IMHO the article has a clear pro-French bias. The battle had gave Napoleon no clear advantage, as he failed to annihilate the Russian army, as was his intention, and was constrained to follow it further away from his power base in Poland, which eventually resulted in a catastrophe. I checked Britannica for a NPOV source; it doesn't speculate which victory it was noticing that "Although the Russian army was badly mauled, it survived to fight again and, in the end, drove Napoleon out of Russia". --Ghirla | talk 16:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Battle of Borodino

What? I don't expect you to care what I think about the Battle of Borodino. I'm a reporter, not an historian. My note was to remind you of Wikipedia policy about reverts. I have no opinion regarding your content dispute with another user, except that you should resolve it at the article talk page :)

Cheers, Adrian Lamo ·· 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I responded at your talk page. We can continue the discussion there or here, so just let me know. User:UberCryxic

Hi. I've replied. I'd prefer to continue there, as you've logged in and out a couple of times, and may not get messages here.
As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added.
Cheers! Adrian Lamo ·· 05:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if there was a victor it would be the French, but there victory was exremely marginal. Although the French were in control of the field at the end of the battle, the russians retreated in good order and really the French accomplished none of their real objectives. I'm changing the result to nominal French victory. I am a real admirer of Bonaparte, but I know that there is near consensus among historians that this is one of Napoleans worst battles and that he was quite sick while the most important part of the fighting occured- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Louis Faury

Any chance you could write a stub about him? I couldn't google enough info myself, but perhaps you have some books or such?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

FAR

Hi. I know you're very enthusiastic in getting MHoF to FA status, but you really can't post messages such as if so, please come and cross out your objection.. It's ok to remind a reviewer that his objection is addressed (or at least responded to), but you should never ask him/her to strike bluntly out his vote. The only reason for the delay in a further response was that I had to go out of town. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Austerlitz maps

There's a bunch that I've listed at the cartography department; including all of them might be too much, but you should be able to pick out the better ones. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm grabbing everything from the West Point atlases (everything on that page listed as being from the US Military Academy is from there). I think there's a link given at the bottom and on the image page itself, but if you wait a few days I'll probably have the rest of their Napoleonic collection uploaded. Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazing work!

I have to say, I'm very impressed with your Military history of France article! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations for your efforts in achieving Featured Article for Military history of France Gnangarra 09:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Military history of France

Congratulations! As far as the little star goes (I assume that's what you mean by the logo), it's not automatically generated; you need to add {{featured article}} to the bottom of the article for it to appear. Kirill Lokshin 18:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

ERALD!

ERALD!! You are a Wikipedian, too?! Awesome. --MPD01605 (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history of France

We are both in danger of violating the 3 revert rule. Please let other editors comment on my changes in the talk page before either of us reverts the other again.--M@rēino 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the rule. I have still have one more to go. Look, when this article went through the FA process, it went through the exact same thing you are bringing up now. People then decided it was best to leave it the way it was. The mediation you bring will see that.UberCryxic 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh you broke the rule when you reverted me, last warning 172.165.98.163 02:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I want to make it clear that I am not 172.165.98.163. I have no idea who he/she is or what that user's complaint is.--M@rēino 02:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_France&action=history you badly broke 3rr, UberCryxic, any more reverts and I would report you. I'm not Mareino by the way, I'm a experinced AOL user who used to have a account. Thanks 172.165.98.163 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I love it when collaboration works! --M@rēino 04:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I want to protest against the reverting of my edits. Some information in this article are factual wrong. I corrected it, but you reverted it. I know i should have made a justification for it, so it is mostly my own fault. I think that the mistakes should be corrected.--Daanschr 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is OK :)--Daanschr 18:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Vercingetorix is a debatable. The Cisalpinian Gallic have nothing to do with France. See Celts.--Daanschr 20:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your baby making the main page today! As I'm sure you are already aware, it's both a blessing and a curse. But it's probably slightly more of a blessing! — BrianSmithson 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot man. I guess it hasn't been as heavily vandalized as I expected! I'm holding on, just barely....haha.UberCryxic 02:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Inflicted

Why does the French military history page say that they inflicted defeat upon the British in the American revolution? It appears your bias w/r/t France has taken you over. Duckdid 05:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think saying "helped" inflict would be more appropriate. The Americans contributed mightily to the victory. Furthermore, it would be inaccurate to characterize the American Revolutionary War as being won by the French. Rarely if ever have I heard someone say, "The American Revolutionary War was a French victory over the British", which is what the current version is tantamount to saying. You've also gone overboard on the 3RR on that article. Duckdid 05:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope you didn't decide to make the change just because I mentioned the 3RR. I'm not going to report it. It looked like at least twelve reverts by my count, but actually filing a report has to be the most bureaucratic, anal-retentive process ever.

It appears to me that your work regarding France follows this basic pattern (1) When the French lost, is there a way to say that it was a French mistake rather than a decisive defeat? (2) Is there a way to marginalize any contributions by America? I note this pattern on the British longbows, France/Mexico, American Revolution, and WWI victory.

I’m not saying you’re wrong in every case, but that kind of mentality shows typical liberal bias. I doubt you want or need preaching, but I would interject that you should attempt to watch for this bias when you are editing. Duckdid 06:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Please be more careful about reverting. With this edit you reverted one piece of vandalism but you reverted two good, constructive edits. At that ratio articles actually get worse, not better. Thanks for understanding. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: French military history

If you think the article is a bad idea, say so on that article's page, not on my talk page. Andjam 04:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Saintonge War, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

What a twist... thanks for writing that! ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Re:Trip

I'll drive. I like driving. I need to double double-check with my parents so that they definitely know I'm going and that they're ok with it. They should be. As for accomodations, I wouldn't mind staying in a YMCA for $22/night. But yeah, I was thinking of going up Friday morning early, then staying Friday night, Saturday night, then depending what's going on on Sunday, either leaving Sunday evening or just coming back on Monday. I also feel it'd be easier to stay in the YMCA because I don't think we'd have to really plan too far ahead for accomodations. But that's what I plan to do. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, ok. My mom says we need to talk about it. She said she doesn't mind if I go. But yeah, first, we need to find out how much it's gonna cost. For accomodations, that is. I'm realying on you for someplace cheap. Cambridge, MA. Yes. Ok, so I'll get back to you after I talk to her. --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: 3RR

For your information, you have violated WP:3RR at . This has been reported at the relevant location. It's a shame you aren't discussing this properly. violet/riga (t) 17:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Military of France, you have also violated the Revert rule. However, I will not report it.UberCryxic 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I reverted three times, thus not violating it. violet/riga (t) 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your desired changes have been implemented. I admire your tenacity. Your remind me of French soldiers at Casteldelfino.UberCryxic 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A joke in the face of this disagreement? Nice to see. Not sure why you've seemingly changed your mind, but I hope it will stop any further disagreements. Please be aware that I have no personal grudge against the French military - just know that many people do and think it is worthy of inclusion. violet/riga (t) 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[1] made on May 16, 2006 (UTC) to Military history of France====

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 12 hours. William M. Connolley 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

French military history

I thought you might be interested to know that the French military history task force is now active! Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic

<moved from Talk:Military history of France>

I hope you can look at yourself with some selfcritism, because seriously what are you doing?

You act as if you own this article and you go in full charge whenever someone challenges your point of view, not avoiding personal attacks.I suggest you really cool down before this here article/talkpage turns into a real mess, in which there will be only losers - if you know what I mean-. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, but I could surmise it. Some people have gone beyond just challenging points of view, which I have no problem with, and in those cases they must be sternly opposed. Generally, however, I think I've been about as appropriate in my conversational demeanor as others, if not more so.
"You act as if you own this article"
I do act that way, don't I? I've noticed that too. However, in no way do I think I own this article. Maybe that's how I act, but that's not what I think. There's an interesting dynamic going on somewhere in there. I will note that I invested much time and energy to take this article where it is today, and hopefully my overly defensive conduct can be analyzed in that context.UberCryxic 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
>>Maybe that's how I act, but that's not what I think<<

That is a very bad excuse UberCryxic.I really suggest you change this behaviour, because if it stays the way it is now, you're bound to get into trouble. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is doing fine, despite my so-called "behavior." Either way, I have already gotten into trouble. I violated 3-R and was banned. Thank you for only concentrating on only one part of my response btw. Really classy.UberCryxic 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There are people on wikipedia with a lot less patience than I have UberCryxic.That last remark could get you suspended for a personal attack.I'm not warning you to make a public fool of yourself, I'm sure you're perfectly capable of doing that yourself.I'm here to warn you not to let your behaviour get out of hand.For your own sake. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I could also charge that you made a personal attack. "not warning you to make a public fool of yourself, I'm sure you're perfectly capable of doing that yourself." Very charming. I think you'll note my comment revealed more sarcasm than anything else. My behavior in here has been no more aberrant than that of many others.UberCryxic 20:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Many would disagree. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid personal remarks and vague threats, shall we? It's hardly productive to make this any more of a discussion of contributors—rather than the actual material in the article—than it already is. Kirill Lokshin 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
And many would agree. There are obviously plenty of sensitivities plaguing this article and this topic, especially since the diplomatic crisis over Iraq. I knew some would like what I did, and others would not. I hesitate to think that our opinions here reveal something about our character and general nature. Rather, they probably reflect upbringing or political and cultural sympathies. These "personal attacks," which I and many others have made sparingly, do not mean that there are bad guys here. Nevertheless, here are some others who have made these attacks you are accusing me of...
Byron wrote,
" do not want to join wikipedia as a full-time member, and commit myself and my life to a website. That is the most pathetic comment one could say. It is people like you who grow up fat, being top-posting members of 80 ndifferent forums, and never have a relationship cause they are too busy playing online solitaire."
He was responding to this comment by Xibe,
"Dear anonymous coward, please read yourself"
And this was another personal attack by you....
"Don't behave like a little dictator." - Although you got my life wish correct. That's exactly what I want to be. A nice, or mean (I can choose right?), dictator.
Frustration certainly was caused by comments like these, which sprung up constantly...
"Why is there no section talking about how the French have become a laughing stock because they are pussies and surrender all the time. Even Mexico beat them!"
But my personal favorite, "Calm down, Rex. He is right." That was by MilesVorkosigan referring to me. That is, I was right and you were wrong. Hehe....UberCryxic 21:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you find yourself amusing, I sure don't. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do.UberCryxic 16:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry UberCryxic, you can have the last line in this 'discussion'; if that makes you feel special. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It does.UberCryxic 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought so. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I like how you think.UberCryxic 16:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you can grasp that level of intelect. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't hurt my feelings.UberCryxic 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you can take this. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 18:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can, unlike the Dutch in 1795, I can.UberCryxic 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

An assault on my nationality UberCryxic? That's pretty low, and it looks quite stupid when taken in (and out of) context. Ironic that you should make such a remark, you being a non-French French nationalist (which is quite special in a sad kind of way)... well as they say here; "If you can't find it at home, look elsewhere..." With that in mind trading Albania for France isn't such a big step.~ Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Damn I'm good. That little jab produced a torrent on your part. Ouch! Question: why must you repeatedly link my username? It is unnecessary.UberCryxic 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A torrent dear UberCryxic? No, just a little a slap in the face to remind your ego who you are. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A torrent dear UberCryxic? No, just a little a slap in the face to remind your ego who you are. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again with the linking. Oh well, must be some sort of obsession.UberCryxic 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Apologies are apparently in order. I acted in a very childish manner. Sorry, and I really do mean that.UberCryxic 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Never promise what you cannot convert into reality UberCryxic".

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, it is over. I apologized, and I meant it. I was mostly responsible, simply because I have an extreme taste for joking. I sincerely hope we can forget about all this. It's not something worth becoming or remaining enemies over.UberCryxic 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll never know if you meant it, or wether you just typed you were sorry because you faced or are facing a "short bann".I have my thoughts though. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine; you can think that. I only hope it does not compromise any future material we may work on together, and I'm sure you feel the same way.UberCryxic 19:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not make assumptions on my behalf. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant nothing harmful. I apologize.UberCryxic 20:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So you say. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And mean.UberCryxic 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think hiding this whole ordeal by creating an archive will make a difference? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please put this behind us? I do not want to accuse you of being confrontational, but you are not helping. Yes, I am now moving this material to the archive.UberCryxic 20:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can.Deleting information isn't going to help you though. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not being deleted. It is being removed to another place. This is my userpage.UberCryxic 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/b/e/User_talk%7EUberCryxic_Archive_1_c772.html"