User talk:Brutannica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nice work

Hi,

I noticed your contributions to Antoine Lavoisier and paper. They are excellent. Please continue to edit articles on Wikipedia.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 19:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Honored Americans Project

Study the project at Talk:George Washington. Any other honors you can add?? Remember the restrictions: there is no maximum limit as long as you are including only Americans whose entire life was in the range 1706-1945. 66.245.126.173 17:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not really a project that I'm interested in at the moment. I added the Washington Monument, and might add other names and places later, but for now it just seems like a curiosity and not something that would be used for Wikipedia (except maybe, "this person is the third-most honoured in America."). Brutannica 05:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Euclid

I've changed something you added to Euclid. See Talk:Euclid#Algebra. I hope I wasn't too blunt in my comment. - dcljr 03:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nah, you weren't. Brutannica 02:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changaiz Khan

The reason for adding Changaiz was that that's the way he's known in the Urdu-speaking (South Asian) and, I think, Persian-speaking world. And that part of humankind is an important component of both the greater human experience and of the discussion of Genghis Khan and world history. And he's quite a presence in the intellectual space of those worlds.--iFaqeer 18:28, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'll include it. Brutannica 23:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wright Bros

I had cited the Wright Bros article in my own mind as evidence that Wikipedia was fated to fall into cliques who defend only their own version of the truth. I had tried to put a reference to other claims to first flight in the article and had been aggressively reverted, so I gave up. Now I'm ready for another battle. All power to you. Ben Arnold 04:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You must be mistaken! I never removed other references to first flight. Granted, I never added anything either, but that's just because I don't know anything. Brutannica 02:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just checked. Although you (Ben Arnold) only added a link in the interval since I first edited the article, an anonymous user changed the intro paragraph to remove references to other early flyers. I changed that. I never aggressively reverted anything like you describe. Brutannica 02:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Talk:Charles Darwin

You created a monster with this edit, it seems! For what it's worth, I think that's an interesting factoid. Not deeply meaningful, but interesting. Vincent 09:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of villains

Hey, Brutannica. I've been trying to help improve List of villains by realphabetizing the fictional entries by last name, where known, as you had suggested at one point. An anon user has been reverting my changes. We're trying to hash it out on the talk page instead of getting into an edit war, and I thought that you might be able to shed some light on the subject. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe 18:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

That was the tag I was looking for, I'm sort of new and forget all them. It was close though. :P Kyaa the Catlord 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was intrigued that that article had been cited as a news source... Brutannica 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.


Thanks! --evrik 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not informed/interested about saints in general. Brutannica 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learn this

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html

O.K., but who posted it and why? Brutannica 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted this page to inform you about what you wrote about the french military history. Comeau 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuts. I can't find what I wrote anymore. I swear I remember writing something, though, and it was something along the line of suggesting that the article Military history of France include a section (preferably in the opener) about how Americans perceive the French to be huge cowards who surrender to everybody. (Which fits into the whole effeminate, onion soup- and coffee-drinking, cafe lounging image of Parisians.) I still support this, although I notice it hasn't gotten done.
But I believe I also made sure that I said that I don't personally believe this view and that it stems from World War II, which is the most recent war Americans experienced with the French. I liked this article; it was well-written. But I didn't really learn anything new, and the author seems to exaggerate a lot as well. Brutannica 03:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: Can you tell me where you found what I wrote "about the french military history?"
I don’t understand you. You said that we are coward but it’s not true at all because you talk about a country that save your ass from the British. A country that you probably never see but lets talk about the WW2 (the battle of France) this was a pretty good joke because 130 000 French are dead in these weeks of heavy fighting, so we are coward? I will explain you the Tactic. In 1930, we built a wall in the borders to protect us from a german invasion (because in the ww1 we loose a lot of men) and British will protect us in the north so we don’t built a wall in the Belgium border because their we will do our counter offensive. During the first weeks, when German takes Belgium we move our armoured divisions and we beat them. But the lucky German army decide to sent all her troops to a place who (brit and fr) forget to protect so they invaded us from the back and the face. But as well, we never give up and British began to retreat. We sent our divisions to protect the British from the evacuation of the material and men to continue the fight. You need to understand that in that situation we are not in good position to defend us so we signed an armistice to avoid a massacre. Because the main goal of an army is to protect his population. Later, 1 million and more engage in the resistance and the free force and in 4 years we were back in France in a true victory. In conclusion, yes you save our ass in the WW2 but we save YOUR ass in your Independence war. So think about this.

Comeau 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... I didn't say the French were cowards. I said it was a common American perception, probably not a very educated one either. Although World War II was arguably France's greatest humiliation, it's true that it didn't have very many good options in June 1940. (Let's not go into the Vichy period...) As for the WWII-vs.-American Revolution argument, well, sadly, World War II occurred much more recently so it's much fresher in American memory. Again, I'm not supporting these frames of thought, I'm supporting including them in the relevant article. Brutannica 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: where did you find my post, again? It's hard to respond if I can't find what got you all riled up in the first place. Brutannica 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok but i don't understand the word frame and you talk about this in the military history of France talk page at Surrender, again.
What do you mean by "word frame?" I went back and added another comment on the MH of France page explaining myself a little further. Brutannica 21:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the definition of this word because i never heard this word.

Comeau 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which word? Brutannica 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
frame Comeau 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, a frame can be something that surrounds something else - in this case it is usually used as either "window frame" or "picture frame," referring to the material that surrounds/holds the window or picture. But it can also mean the structure around which something else is built - buildings, ships, or in this case, thought. So I basically meant to say "way of thinking." Brutannica 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks Comeau 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings? By the way, if I were you, I would drop this subject, since I've lost interest in it and no one reacted to it anyway. Heck, I don't really know how widespread the perception is. Brutannica 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh what are you talking about? because if you dont wont to open a subject why you open it. Comeau 18:41, 08 August 2007 (UTC)
I said I lost interest in it. Brutannica 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderbra

Re your comment on the Wonderbra article, maybe some female Wikipedians should now come up with a featured article on Jockey Shorts. Sca

I agree Mattnad 12:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

You're absolutely correct...I let my temper get the best of me. I was taking all the vandalism personally. My bad. --Mike Searson 23:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What? You let your temper get the best of you? I would think thinking before you type is easier than thinking before you talk...
Also, they're not necessarily vandals, probably just random Wikipedia users overly incensed with the Featured Article. Brutannica 23:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't mean the folks disagreeing on the talk page, well aside from 3 of them (anonymous ip's who called me a "retard", "redneck" etc and actually vandalized the article with gibberish, etc.) All day long the article has been vandalized for being on the main page...check the history. Yeah sometimes I just fly-off when typing when I know I should walk away. Thanks again, anyway for reminding me to chill out and not take it personal. --Mike Searson 23:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Brutannica! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My name

If you'll recall, on an episode of the Colbert Report that aired before the seventh Harry Potter book was released Colbert bragged about getting an advance copy of the book. During the monologue he dropped several spoiler alerts, including "Spoiler alert! Hermione is a dude!"

Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)