User talk:A.S. Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Contents

[edit] Nurenburg Trials Page

Thank you for your message regarding my alleged vandalism. I simply deleted extraneous keystrokes someone else has left in the article. The article's content was left unmolested by me. I checked the revisions and this is the IP Address of the offender: 24.248.184.91 24.19.230.235 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindenburg

I added my response on my talk page. –Joke137 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The True Powers of the Gomery Commission

Hi there. I moved this piece from Talk:Sponsorship scandal here, because that page is really only for discussion of how to improve the article Sponsorship scandal, not analysis or discussion of the issue in general.
If there are specific things you find lacking in the sponsorship scandal article, feel free to edit that article, or mention what you find lacking on the talk page. However, keep in mind that (for example) speculation on the extent of Gomery's powers shouldn't be added to the article unless it represents a noteworthy point of view on the subject (i.e. one held by many individuals). Regards, Saforrest 14:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of WWI

I like your recent addition to the page. "Thinly veiled admonitory allegory" is a phrase I hope to use in conversation someday. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

Just out of curiousity, what's the relevance of the book reference you added to David Irving? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Looking forward to seeing some of the material from it show in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Dmowski

You did a good job, and now that you have your own username account, you should get messages addressed to you without any delays :) Glad to see you decieded to stick around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for getting back to me - and I am happy to see you are back to Wiki. Please note that I have just found a source for this quote - see Talk:Roman Dmowski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure. Note it is NOT the same quote - a similar one, but actually more 'antisemitic' then the other one. Two minor notes: 1) you know how to use Google_Print#Book_Search? 2) When replying on Wiki, remember that bottomposting is the rule. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Google Print is very easy - the article above should give you some tips, but you can verify the quote I gave you just by clicking the link I mention on the RD talk page. GP is one of the best things that have happened to scholars in the last year, I think :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuremberg Trials

Please see Talk:Nuremberg Trials. Lupo 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gisela Bock

Hi, in de.wiki we have just had a complainig about the birthdate of Gisela Bock not to be correct. As the article here was started before the one in the german wikipedia, could you please give information about your source? 1942 seems to be correct, but I couldn't yet confirm the rest. Thanks, --Dbenzhuser 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Dbenzhuser 22:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste move of Anglophile

I reverted your cut and paste move of Anglophile to Anglophilia, because this isn't how it is done on Wikipedia. Please read Help:Moving a page. Edward 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranke

Thanks for your additions to the Ranke page. You put in a lot of work. -- TheMightyQuill 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George F. Kennan

Hi, you added

  • John Lukacs (editor with the introduction) George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946 : the Kennan-Lukacs Correspondence, (Columbia, Mo. : University of Missouri Press, 1997).

in the References section in George F. Kennan. Is that book used as a source in the article or why did you add it? If Kennan contributed in the writing of this book maybe i should be in the Publications section instead. I'm not sure if he actually did though. Vints 10:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied in my talk page. Vints 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Irving

Hi. I just wanted to drop you a note to congratulate you on the fine work you've done on this article. Keep it up. --Guinnog 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Minor" edits

Hi -- I've noticed that you aren't using the "This is a minor edit" checkbox correctly in a lot of your edits. Please take a quick look at Help:Minor edit. Thanks. KarlBunker 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Rehnquist

Hi. I agree with your removal of the "current event" tag from William Rehnquist, but just as an FYI point, the tag wasn't a remnant from the time of his death—it was added when some new medical records about him were released and in the news a couple of weeks ago. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Hello, thought I would stop-by and thank you for adding the articles to the List of Adolf Hitler books section...great job ! Headphonos 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please accept this barnstar, which you can put on your User Page:

The Epic Barnstar
Awarded to A.S. Brown for contributions to military history articles.


[edit] The Reichtags Fire

  • Dear Dr Brown, please realize that a couple of years ago a German scholar detected, and published, a relevant source (a report written by Ralph C. Busser 1934: "The Riddle of the Revolution") on that issue: Osteuropa in Tradition und Wandel. Leipziger Jahrbücher (ed. Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Sachsen [RLS Saxony), 3 (1) 2001, 217-283, cordially, CoStA 80.136.91.148 14:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reichstag fire

Hello! Please explain your reversion [1]. --90.241.129.187 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well, don't then. I shall revert back. --90.241.129.187 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
(I am the same person, merely my IP address has changed.)
Thanks for responding; as my IP address changed I was not notified you had. I assumed you had seen my message but consciously chosen not to respond as the logs showed you had visited and edited Wikipedia in the intervening time.
With regards to the former part of your message, you are mistaken. I did not make any changes to what the Reichstag is called, so your reversion did not address your concern: I only changed what the page the link, when clicked on, led to. Indeed, I can still see 'German Parliament' up there in the article, and I suggest you change it now if that's what you're worried about. (Personally I think it reads better if the word 'Reichstag' isn't mentioned in the same sentence, but I don't particularly care about that.)
With regards to the latter part of your message, thank you for your diatribe on how Wikipedia works, but I have been editing for about five years now and I'm afraid it wasn't necessary. While the sentiment on not contributing if you do not wish to be overruled is a fine one, it is not really applicable in this instance as I attempted to open a channel of discussion before I reverted you back to be sure you had a good reason for your actions, and thus was not defending my 'work' purely for the fact it was mine: if you did have a good reason, then I would have let things lie.
Also, don't worry; I'm not offended in the slightest! This happens all the time on this project. --62.136.64.235 00:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935

Greetings, A. S! I thought you would like to know that there is a detailed discussion on the Humanities Reference Desk (July 25, item 6.4) arising from the objections you raised on the talk page of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. You are right; this page is abysmally misleading. In fact I would consider that this to be a case where nothing would be better than something! Anyway, I have responded at length on the Humanities Desk. Would you consider rewriting the whole thing? I will give you all the support I can. Regards Clio the Muse 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Reichstag Fire

Thanks Webhat (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Dear A.S. Brown: Although my German meanwhile is not at all as rosty like my English;-) I´ve got equal problems to understand the very message of that text - I would like to interprete in the manner Hannah Arendt (in 1964) worked out: `This should have never happened`, but I fear that´s an overinterpretation of "Rückwirkungsverbot" (although the text mentioned "Notverordnung" [emergency decree] dated Febr. 28, 1933). The only thing the declaration of the the "Bundesanwaltschaft" cleared up - acc. to the individual Lubbe-case he would have never been killed. The text sounds as if German lawyers as members of a prominent juridical agency like "Bundesanwaltschaft" were afraid of publicly delaring: The total Reichstag Fire Trial was from the very beginning to the last end completely illegal (and as such a crime itself) and, in the sense of H.A., should have never had happened. Looking on the role of the public prosecutor, at that time named "Reichsanwalt", this would mean: Lubbe should have never accused. This would be a strictu-sensu-argumentation in an anti-Filbinger way; Hans F. publicly declared as BW-Prime Minister (1978): ´Was damals Recht war kann heute nicht Unrecht sein´ [What was (regarded) as right (during the Nazi years) can never be illegal now] - but I fear it´s not the business of any prominent juridical figure in current Germany (like Mrs. Harms) to think any moral, political, and juridical problem to an end, for if so "Bundesanwaltschaft" must have stated publicly whenever generalizing the Lubbe-issue: What at that time was (self) declared as right was in fact basically illegal (if not criminal) ... best, M. Eser 80.136.115.190 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 80.136.111.75 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] another link

[[2]] 80.136.66.244 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your edit on David Irving article

I noticed your edit and wanted to bring to your attention a request to move currently proposed on Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov. The name, used in several English publications, is derived from David Irving's 196s translation of Keitel's memoirs, and is not the accepted form of reference to the Red Army offensive in German sources. Although it was suggested that I am introducing original research into the article by virtue of renaming, in my perception the use of the current title in fact forms a single source reference for the article title based on non-academic and unqualified translation lacking substantiation in either German or Russian sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)