User talk:BradMajors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have stopped contributing to Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has multiple problems, its tolerance for bad behaviour and incivility is creating a intolerably hostile environment. Here's a post worth reading: [1]


Brad Majors BradMajors 02:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, BradMajors! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ~Kylu (u|t) 07:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous
 
DuncanHill 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Haldimand Proclamation

Any reason why you blanked the article after the copyvio tag was removed? I was cleared by a human being as not a violation. — Coren (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will put the article back. BradMajors 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central New York

Nice job taking on some of the articles, especially after all the vandalism they have suffered. Keep up the good work, Thanks,Stepp-Wulf 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Give me Liberty, or give me Death!

You have been doing some good work on this article, and I wanted to express my appreciation. I would also like to ask you a question. Do you think it would be a good idea to start a 2nd paragraph with the line "Problematically, the text of this speech did not appear in print until 1817..."? That seems like a good place for a break, since the first paragraph is rather long, and because that sentence begins a new topic, namely the provenance of the speech that has come down to us through history. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think it makes sense for the first paragraph to state what is known with reasonable certainty, and a second paragraph to discuss Wirt's version. Some additional things I think could be added (once the references are located):
  • I don't believe there is any record of Patrick Henry having used this expression before 1817,
  • There are contemporary records of other people during this time period saying things which sounded very similar,
  • Similar sounding expressions were in use before Patrick Henry made his speech,
  • The Founding Fathers were great readers of Roman literature, in particular the struggle of the Roman Republic against Julius Caesar, and Cato said things sounding very similar. I think he might have used these actual words. BradMajors 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
All of that sounds entirely reasonable to me. I will make the change that I suggested, and I look forward to seeing your further improvements. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

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:

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 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George III

I don't object, particularly. I'm just following the guideline at WP:MoS, which deprecates linking more than strictly necessary. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Province of New York

You just removed a lot of the article. You did say "(→New Netherlands - content merged into New York article)" but i could not see any of it. All i saw was a big bit of the article missing. I have now had a look and it looks like you have now added your extra information as 1000 bytes + were added. Maybe next time do the changes in one big edit or make a notice saying that "you will finish the article shortly". I am sorry for any inconvenience caused. Addshore (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Heya, welcome to WikiProject History! If you ever need anything just drop by our talk page--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Brant

Sorry about overdoing the reducing of links in Joseph Brant. And by the way, congratulations on your expansion of the article-- I read Kelsey two years ago, but despaired at condensing it to an encyclopedic length! Hope you are not distressed at my copyediting your opus. I would say "Keep up the good work", but you clearly don't need my encouragement. Enjoy! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you did a great job. You just made one mistake by removing every one of the Onoquaga links. The current article needs a review. I would appreciate it if you could give your opinion on what needs to be done to "finish" the article. BradMajors (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. As for a review, though, I will ask Kevin Myers, a prolific contributor to early American history articles to take a look at it. I don't think I'm historian enough to critique it at this point. Cheers! -- `Mwanner | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you took so kindly to my copyedit on Joseph, I did a bit on sister Molly. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. Can you copyedit all my articles? :) BradMajors (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolutionary War

Brad, when and if you have a moment, can you take a look at the troop strength numbers on this article? It simply makes no sense that the colonies' troop strength is shown at 250,000 and the UK's at 12,000. I just reverted vandalism, bringing it back to those numbers, but clearly something is amiss. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the numbers are wrong. The US might have had 250,000 if militia was included. The issue is finding a source with reliable numbers. I will be on the lookout for a source with some numbers I can trust. (NB. The list of commanders is also nonsense.) BradMajors (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I went back through the history, and those numbers have been pretty consistent for months now. Regardless, they are way off. My 30+ year old National Geographic book on the revolution gives the following figures:
British: 50,000 over the course of 7 years, with another 8,200 Loyalists
Colonists: 250,000 (including militia) over the course of 8 years; 6,000 to 28,000 effectives at any given time.
At least these figures would be better in the short term until we can find something more definitive (and up-to-date). Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Peter R. Livingston (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Peter R. Livingston (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Fire of New York (1776)

I agree with the observations you made on my discussion page. I am not sure when I will be able to get to it, on my part. Ideally, POV should have nothing to do with it - no? Shoreranger (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes. If the article solely consists of facts supported by citations then the article does not have a POV, since facts do not have a POV. If there is reliable evidence that the British quartered troops in occupied homes that is an important issue since doing so would be a violation of the Quartering Act. (I was the one who wrote most of the Quartering Act article). BradMajors (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continental Congress

I noticed your comment on Talk:List of Continental Congress Delegates about splitting the list up by state. Instead of that, I think we ought to split up the categories, like we did with Continental officers, creating Category:Continental Congressmen from New York, etc., which would fit nicely in Category:People of New York in the American Revolution, etc. That way we could reduce the double categorization of some people who are in both the "Continental Congressman" and "People of Foo in the American Revolution" categories. Populating the categories would be easy using the existing List of Continental Congress Delegates. Sound good? —Kevin Myers 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this category should be split into state categories exactly as has been done for Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives. But, the state categories will not fit neatly into Category:People of New York in the American Revolution since the Continental Congress continued until 1790. It is debatable whether this category should be split again into delegates to the Continental Congress and delegates to the Congress of the Confederation. BradMajors (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the categories will fit neatly because the Confederation Congress is usually considered a part of the Revolutionary era. Many books on the history of the Revolution (as distinguished from the War of Independence) don't end until the creation of the Constitution. See, for example, Alden's A History of the American Revolution or Wood's The American Revolution: A History. Encyclopedias take the same view: Purcell's Who Was Who in the American Revolution has entries for all of the Confederation Congressmen. Boatner's Encyclopedia lists them all too, because, in his words, "even those who served only in 1788–89 were part of the Revolutionary era." (p. 274). So not only is it okay for the Confederation Congressmen to be in the "People of the American Revolution" categories, we actually need them to be in there.
Now, as for the question of whether or not additional categories need to be made for Confederation Congressmen, I would say no. I think a list is better suited for that purpose. A lot could be done to improve List of Continental Congress Delegates using the new-fangled sorting tools that featured lists use these days. With a click of a header you could sort delegates alphabetically, or by state, or by which Congress they attended. The example to be followed is List of signatories of the United States Constitution, which is excellent. —Kevin Myers 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am aware it is traditional in encyclopaedias to over simplify things and have the American Revolution end in 1790 and the next chapter to be about the history of the United States. We need a formal definition of the category Category:American Revolution. If the American Revolution did not end in 1783 then it did not start in 1775. I can't say much more until we have a first pass on this definition.
If the new sorting tools are used for Continental Congressmen; this would be a better solution, I will get what I am looking for, and no further subcategories would be required. BradMajors (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intolerable Acts

Calling all of the Intolerable Acts a form of collective punishment is simply wrong. Firstly, because most of the acts were not even punishment. The only act which could be considered punishment is the Boston Port Act and perhaps with a stretch the Massachusetts Government Act . BradMajors (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Feel free to put the category only on the correct articles. I moved the talk thread here to keep it in one place. I will watchlist this talk page for awhile. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Adams

Thanks for your additions to Samuel Adams! In your future edits, could you continue the same referencing format I used previously? You reference your material as: <ref>Unger, pg. 111</ref>. Could you change it to: <ref>Unger, p111.</ref>? It's best to have uniformity in the referencing throughout the article. Thanks and keep up the good work. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, who's Unger and what book are you citing? I don't think you added that detail to the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will use your referencing style. I have added Unger as a reference (an oversite). I find the scholarship in "Puls" is poor and "Wells" is worse. My interest is really in the John Hancock article, but it would make sense if the Hancock and Adams articles were consistent! BradMajors (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, much of the scholarship on Adams in the last cenutry was somewhat based on Wells and Hosmer, the two earliest Samuel Adams' biographers. I know Wells doesn't really substantiate anything, but I think his 3-volume work offers a detailed biographical account of Adams' life. Puls' work is alright, IMO. He's really steadfast in showing Adams in a positive light, when much of the recent scholarship has portrayed Adams as propagandist. Also, I'm glad to see you're interested in John Hancock. Let me know if you need any help working on the article. I'd be happy to lend a hand. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures on warnings

Hey there! You might want to think about signing your warnings (like on the Mario Batali vandal recently) so us other vandal patrollers can see when the last warning was given. Just a thought. Happy editing! Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I forgot about my signature in my last of couple anti-vandalism messages. BradMajors (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old Fort Johnson

Great job on additions to this article. Could you take a look at the first of your external links Old Fort Johnson (3 photos from 1936 and 1940)? It looks to me like HABS identifies the building correctly as Fort Johnstown in the city of Johnstown; their only mistake is calling it 'Old' Fort Johnstown. The stone building in the pictures is not Old Fort Johnson, but the Tryon County Jail, built about 1772, and enclosed by Fort Johnstown in 1776. NancePG (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you that the picture does look like the Tryon County Jail, but I don't consider myself an expert on this subject. I have no idea what it would have looked like in 1936. NB. I have uploaded the 1759 drawing of Fort Johnson to Wikimedia and this drawing should be added to this article at some time. BradMajors (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Nor am an I an expert, but I think it's pretty clear that the building illustrated is not Old Fort Johnson. And shouldn't we trust the folks at HABS who labeled it Fort Johnstown, not Johnston? Would you object to removing the link until someone with more local knowledge can weigh in? NancePG (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Removal is fine with me. BradMajors (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:

{{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information


At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somerset Light Infantry

I've put the info I have in response to your question about the Somerset Light Infantry in ARW on Talk:Somerset Light Infantry.— Rod talk 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page. BradMajors (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Slave Insurrection of 1741

Thank you for your message. Since this question might interest other editors, I've responded at Talk:New York Slave Insurrection of 1741. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military naming conventions

You ask me to open a discussion on the above following a CFD discussion. I have contrinbuted to a number of CFD discussions and have completely forgotten the context which leads to your suggestion. I am a historian, but not specifically a military historian. It is thus possible that my views are wrong. However can you remind me what this was about? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposal to rename the following category was closed without consensus: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 20#Category:Loyalist military units in the American Revolution. Since there was no consensus the discuss needs to be continued elsewhere. Most of this name follows the naming conventions at: WP:MILMOS#CATNAME. The first item would be military history naming conventions. Whether this category should be called "Loyalist" or "Provincial" is another issue. BradMajors (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution to Banastre Tarleton

Just wanted to say that I saw the addition you made to my edit on the Banastre Tarleton page. Adding three little words made the section flow better as well as more accurate. Thanks for your contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashiellx (talk • contribs) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stamp Act

The article is about much more than simply "an act of parliament" -- it is primarily about the American reaction to that act and the formation of the Sons of Liberty is an integral part of that reaction. The current three paragraphs on the Sons of Liberty is hardy excessive and, "maintenance problems" aside, is consistent with the intent of WP:Summary style. The Stamp Act is one of the most signficant events leading up to the Revolution and it is important to show clearly how closely intertwined the origins of the Sons of Liberty were in those events. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps whatever you have perceived as a "personal attack" is simply a natural reaction to your attempt to escalate the issues by proposing to further delete material from the article before there has even been a discussion on the article's talk page concerning your original actions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we please discuss the article rather than discuss editors. BradMajors (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that you aren't discussing the article -- I have responded to your single point and raised several points of my own which you have failed to respond to. Your suggestion that we make use "of a neutral third party facilitator or mediator", when there has been no discussion of most of the issues, seems like another unnecessary escalation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We both agree that the problem is we are not discussing the article. I thought of the idea of using a neutral 3rd party facilitator to help us increase our discussion of the article regardless of the original cause of the poor communication. This would enable us to resolve any disputes among ourselves. In response to your request, I will make a couple of more comments on the article discussion page. BradMajors (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest you either explain exactly what you perceive as personal attacks or remove the allegation from my talk page. Criticisms of your inappropriate tagging of articles (I think the number is up to six) is a matter of interpreting Wikipedia policy. You seem to view tagging as a substitute for actual discussion. Criticism of your additions to articles based on an improper analysis of source material (i.e.Sugar Act and Stamp Act 1765) is based on the substance of the material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question

i noticed your a history buff. Maybe you could help in a way. Id like to add a portion to the page of St Thomas Ontario concerning the war of 1812, and american invasions, but Im lacking a source. Ive been told there are few if any buildings predating 1812 in the city and that a british garrison was built slightly afterwards, would you know a good starting ground of finding information about whether a city was razed or not? Most historical records of the town are pretty limited in history pre 1860ish. any help would be fun, seems like an interesting thing.

For terms of your antivandalism studies, Im impressed with your dedication to fighting it, but i think that the point i raised is a bit siginificant would you think that maybe it might classify as maybe a different topic to what were talking about, I see it acting on a different level really...basically the vandalism im talking about isnt spotted easily but has more of a significant outcome in terms of wikipedias credibilty maybe something could be worked out in a seperate study what are your thoughts?Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the Americans did not go to St. Thomas when they invaded. The best overview would be Pierre Berton's Flames across the Border. Berton's book has a nice bibliography in the back where you can look for other looks on this subject. If Cruikshank wrote something about the invasion, what he wrote would be an excellent source. A lot has been written about Thomas Talbot and the Talbot settlement, if you get a good book on Thomas Talbot it should have something about what happened during the invasion. Another angle is to check out some Middlesex County genealogy sites, they should list some early county historical books.
Yes, there are many statistics which can be gathered on vandalism. What we need to do on the article page is to classify the different types of vandalism and the corresponding statistics to be gathered and then split the discussions on the discussion page into corresponding sections. I can not produce the statistics I want because the relevant data is not available. BradMajors (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolution Task Force

I don't know if it is alive or not, but would hope it is. For the mean time, could you look at Battle of Cowan's Ford and let me know what you think. Sorry if this isn't appropriate on your talk page, I'm still figuring out all the ethics of wikipedia. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The task force is not dead. I wanted to get a reaction so as to get the discussion started again... which you just did. The general rule on Wikipedia is to just do what you think should be done. However, if another editor objects to what you are doing engage in a discussion and form a consensus.
As for Cowan's Ford... I am somewhat familiar with the Southern Theatre, but I am not familiar with this particular battle.
  • I think the article is currently a useful article without any serious problems.
  • There isn't enough references to this article from other articles. For example, there is no mention of this battle in the Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War article; no mention in the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina article; no mention in the Charles Cornwallis article; no mention in the Tarleton article; etc.
  • It would be useful if the article included a list of the major units in the battle.
  • A map would be helpful.
  • Since this is a somewhat obscure battle more needs to be done explaining why this battle is important. The introduction should tell the reader why he should read the rest of the article. It also needs to be explained how this battle fits into the other battles.
  • The sources used are webpages which is OK with the present state of the article. I have no opinion on whether the webpages referenced are accurate. However, webpages in general are not considered highly reliable sources. Recent scholarly works would be preferred, there are some books mentioned in the Southern Theatre article. For this article to become a "Good Article" or a "Featured Article" use of sources which are considered more reliable would be required.
  • The Henry Morgan link links to the wrong person.
  • I can come up with more ideas until you tell me to stop.

BradMajors (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will continue to work on this article (I have already fixed the link to Morgan). And I welcome an ideas that you may have. Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SUMMARY, still ignored

Hello Brad, while posting a photo, I noticed that the article Incas had a chapter called Society but no link to the article Inca society. Typical. I added it myself. I wanted to share this one with you, I thought you'd appreciate. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What is worse I realized that WP:SUMMARY did not follow WP:SUMMARY.
I am OK with editors ignoring guidelines. What I would like to be able to do is to recommend that an article be well structured with a link to a recommendation and an example. My problem is there doesn't exist such a recommendation, WP:SUMMARY is a poor substitute. It could be argued that the Incas and Inca society should not be in a hierarchy, the "main" link should be removed, and WP:SUMMARY does not apply. Such an argument would not violate any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or recommendation.
I have made a few small changes to WP:SUMMARY, you should be able to make a few more changes without raising objections.
I am for several different reasons investigating if there are alternatives. There is Citizendium [2]. They are much better organized and there is editor overseeing the articles so there will not be the chaos on Wikipedia. It is possible to import articles from Wikipedia to Citizendium. Google is also creating a competitor to Wikipedia [3]. BradMajors (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Probability of Google Kohl becoming more popular than Wikipedia by the end of 2009: [4] BradMajors (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stamp Act Congress merge

You should go ahead and perform this merge. There is no reason for such a long section in the Stamp Act article. Reduce it to a paragraph and be done with it. There was no discussion of the merge, to be sure, but that also means there was no objection. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing that a merge would make sense. There was an objection raised on the Stamp Act discussion page. I am very reluctant to perform the merge because of the probability if I did I would be accused of "edit warring" or some other nonsense. It would be better if someone else performed the merge. BradMajors (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Col. Daniel Thurston

Hello !!!

Am I to understand from your alteration of the categories appended to the article on Daniel Thurston that you actually have some info ? I would really appreciate it if you were to add same to the instant article.

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See article discussion. BradMajors (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't buy your logic and renew my protest, you have assumed, and all I had asked in return for your presumtion was that you ( or one of your cohorts who does have access to the info) look in MA S and S in the Am Rev (and if you can't find it there then look it up where it is) and post your results. Your work group has been sloppy about their alterations to my posts before, and I object to this, if you silly nitpickers can't be helpful expect me to protest again, and if you won't do anything to help with the info...then expect that I will revert your change (I will give you another week before I do this). John5Russell3Finley (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Transclusion as a tool to decrease duplications

Hello Brad, a few months ago we had a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Summary style about how to remove duplicate content from Wikipedia using the Summary Style guideline. Since, I learned about a neat tool called transclusion. In a nutshell, a well written lead section is a perfect summary. By framing the main article lead with <onlyinclude> text </onlyinclude> markups, then inserting in the summary article a transclusion template like {:Main article name}, the lead paragraph magically appears in the summary article.

I like it because users attempting to edit this text from the summary article will be redirected to the main article where experts will watch them. Also, the two texts are in fact one; there is no duplication. I've been discussing it and providing examples here. So far, most people like the idea but are hesitant to change the guideline. I invite you join in but, more importantly, to try this tool. Do you think that the people at United States will allow one to replace the History of the United States section with the transcluded lead section of History of the United States? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject edit counters

has been belatedly answered.

(and if you're not aware of WP:EIW, check it out; the answer to the second question came from the "Page views" topic.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)