Visit my archive @ User talk:Oldwindybear/archive1

Hi oldwindybear

Our podcaster posted his question on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae#Persian situation prior to battle. Any clues what the situation was or where one might look it up?

Greetings Wandalstouring 10:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! Victor Davis Hanson has done an excellent analysis of the battle, and the situation before the Battle, and another good source is the book THE SPARTANS by Paul Cartledge. It is a really wonderful glimpse into the culture that produced the warriors that marched to the Hot Gates. It gets a little detailed, but what he seeks is there. How are you doing, and is there anything I can work on for you? old windy bear 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be ok re Sparta, but the reason I asked, where to do with getting the article slightly more balanced. In other words, having stuff on what the persian's where up to as well. Assuming there is factual infromation that can be sourced from other historians...

ShakespeareFan00 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShakespeareFan00 Hello! Yes, there is information available. I will get you some specifics as to author, book, and chapter by the middle of next week. Obviously, there is more on Sparta and the Greeks available since 1) our culture in the west is essentially descended from the Greek-Roman civilization, and the bulk of our histories concentrate on the Greek role in the struggle as pivotal to the development of that civilization. Additionally, many Persian histories were destroyed with the Islamic conquest of the Sassanid Empire. Nonetheless, there is information out there, and I will get some references for you. old windy bear 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The April 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Contact is a new service and honor the milhist project has introduced. I want to suggest you as a possible contact. Could you please name some subjects you are quite familiar with and willing to help(answer questions, reviews) within our scope. Wandalstouring 10:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! I would be honored to be listed, and to assist in any way I could. I am considered to be quite conversant with the following areas of military history:

1) the campaigns and battles of the Carolingian Empire, including the early years when it was under the Arnulfing Dynasty with a figurehead Merovingian Monarch;

2) Roman Empire, particularly the Later Roman Empire, including the Eastern Empire from Constantine the Great up to it's fall;

3) the Mongol Conquests, from the rise of Genghis Khan to the Great Standing, including Timer the Lame;

4) The Islamic Conquest Era, especially under the rightly guided Caliphs up to the collapse of the Umayyads;

I am somewhat conversant with these subjects, though not to the extent of the earlier topics:

1) The Napoleanic Wars, especially the naval engagements;

2) The Ottoman Empire and it's wars, especially the early conquests;

3) The Mogul Empire and it's wars, up to the British extinction of the Empire.

I am delighted you thought of me, and am honored to assist.old windy bear 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were elected contact (It took so long because I had to reduce my wikitime). You will be notified about peer reviews within your scope. Please help us to find other editors capable of becoming a contact. Wandalstouring 07:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I greatly appreciate the honor, and will do a good job for you! old windy bear 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oldwindybear, I nominated you for adminship, good luck, I feel you would add something to wikipedia as an admin. Here is the link to your nomination. [[1]]Stillstudying 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to inform you that the previous rfa filed by Stillstudying was not correctly filled out. I refiled the paperwork correctly on his behalf. The message below contains more information about adminship and your role in obtaining it. Good Luck! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend - I added two articles this weekend which should be in the purview of the military history project, one an article on the real life indian war chief BUFFALO HUMP, who led the GREAT RAID OF 1840, (Which I am preparing another new article on!) and who commanded the Comanche war party at the BATTLE OF PLUM CREEK. None of this was on wikipedia, so I put articles on the war chief and the battle, and am putting the finishing touches on one on the Great Raid. Would you review them and see if they are decent additions to the military history project? Thanks! [2] [3] old windy bear 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear, would you look at the article the moon is a harsh mistress, [and see if you feel that my edit on Heinlein's feeling that people, not organizations, are at the heart of any social structure, is a valid point. I have an editor who keeps deleting it without discussion, and would like another opinion. Thanks. Stillstudying 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillstudying I have done so, and the edit you made is appropriate and adds to the article, and I have noted that on the talk page. old windy bear 20:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the article, it is not a copyright violation, as an administrator found and removed your tag. Nonetheless, in the ends of you cannot be too careful, I tweaked the wording, and I had already been extremly careful to attribute sourcing. old windy bear 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have taken another look at the article, as you requested. I have to disagree with your assertions that it was not a copyvio and that you didn't copy any sentences.

Here is the lead sentence from the article you posted:

"In the Council House Fight thirty Penateka Comanche leaders and warriors, as well as some five women and children of the tribe, were killed by Texas troops at San Antonio on March 19, 1840."

Here is the lead sentence from http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/CC/btc1.html:

"In the Council House Fight thirty Penateka Comanche leaders and warriors, as well as some five women and children of the tribe, were killed by Texas troops at San Antonio on March 19, 1840."

Here is a second passage from your article:

"Comanche brought one captive to the meeting. They held others back to have something to negotiate with. The Texans demanded that the Comanche turn over all the captives right away. When the Indians did not immediately give in to the demands, instead of honoring the white flag of truce, the Texans threw open the doors and windows, and started shooting the surprised and unarmed Indians. The Comanches fought back, but all of them were killed. Even the Comanches camped outside of town were attacked by surprise and many were killed."

Here is a virtually identical passage from http://www.texasindians.com/comanche.htm:

"The Comanche brought one captive to the meeting. They held others back to have something to negotiate with. Also, some white captives were under the control of bands of Comanche who did not come to the meeting. The Texans demanded that the Comanche turn over all the captives right away. When the Indians did not immediately give in to the demands, instead of honoring the white flag of truce, the Texans started shooting the surprised unarmed Indians. The Comanches fought back, but all of them were killed. Even the Comanches camped outside of town were attacked by surprise and many were killed."

I don't have time to analyze this further, but you copied at least six sentences verbatim from other websites, and pretty much the whole passage above. This isn't an issue of tweaking language. This is blatant copyright violation.

Please go through the article and delete whatever you copied. Please don't remove the copyvio tag until you have done so.

Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butseriouslyfolks Good morning! No offense, but you must not have read the article, as that language is already gone! I carefully attributed it, but to address your concern, I changed it altogether - it was gone when you posted your reply. In any event, thanks for noting a concern, which has been addressed. I did not remove the tag on the article, someone else did, but I removed it here since I had attributed, and then removed the offensive langage. Thanks! old windy bear 10

30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't have time to go over every sentence. But after your last note, I took another look, and there are other problematic sections. For instance:

You wrote:

"They raided and burned the towns of Victoria and Linnville and stole thousands of horses and mules and as much plunder as they could carry. They then returned to their own lands. On the way back they fought the battle of Plum Creek near Lockhart."

http://www.texasindians.com/comanche.htm says:

"They raided and burned the towns of Victoria and Linnville. They stole hundreds of horses and mules and as much stuff as they could carry. They then returned to their own lands. On the way back they fought the battle of Plum Creek near Lockhart."

Changing a word here or there does not eliminate the copyright violation. Don't take offense at this, but if you can't tell what you wrote from what somebody else wrote, maybe you should start the article again from scratch. --Butseriouslyfolks 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butseriouslyfolks More than a word or two was changed, but I have asked another editor to examine this, as we cannot seem to agree, and I feel you are harassing me, no offense. I changed more than a word here and there - I changed sufficient wording to elimate any question of copyright issues, and please, how many ways can you say they ambushed them and did it under a flag of truce? I am trying to work with you, but I think you are carrying this too far. old windy bear 10

38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly sorry you feel I am harassing you, as that is absolutely not my intent. I tagged the article as a copyvio due to the numerous sentences you cut-and-pasted from other websites. Another editor failed to see the copied sentences and removed the tag. You left a note on my talk page indicating that you hadn't transferred any sentences from other websites. I took another look at the article and found several sentences that you copied verbatim, so I pointed that out to you and put the tag back, telling you that I didn't have time to look at every sentence, so I asked you to check it over. You correctly noted that the sentences I identified had been removed, but I was quickly able to identify more sentences you copied. The bottom line is that it was a copyvio when I tagged it, it was a copyvio after you edited it, it was a copyvio when you said it wasn't a copyvio and, unless you have edited it again, it's still a copyvio. You can use other websites as a source of information, but not a source of sentences. I don't think it can be considered harassment to ask you to remove obvious copyright violations from an article you have written. --Butseriouslyfolks 11:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butseriouslyfolks good morning. old windy bear asked me to examine the article. I carefully looked at it, and to the best of my ability to identify them, it does not presently contain any sentences which are exact copies of material from other websites. It does contain material which is close, but that material is correctly sourced, and Bear is right that when dealing with historical data, there is only so many ways you can cite it. I feel you both have a point. I ascertain from Bear's posting that he felt he had sourced the material, thus negating any question of a copyright violation. But you correctly noted we need to be extra careful, given the accusations of plagerism which have recently plagued wikipedia. Bear must have agreed, he went through the article, and changed any sentence which was copied, attributed or not. This removes any copyright questions, unless you can identify which sentences you presently say are copied? I feel you both have a point. He was extremely careful to source the material, and attribute it - which certainly no one attempting to plagerize does! - but again, given current issues with copyrighted material, you made a valid point as well that whether it legally constituted a copyright violation was irrelevant to the larger issue of the perception of one. Nonetheless, I have examined the article(s) and cannot find a sentence copied verbatim. Would you identify any you say are? I have checked it carefully for such violations, and cannot find any. Stillstudying 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the language I cited above is still there, so I don't need to look any further. I guess I better spend some time with the article removing the copyvios myself. Thanks for looking it over though. --Butseriouslyfolks 13:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butseriouslyfolks I am sorry, but while you certainly edited language, nothing you changed was a direct copy - and you did not identify what you claim was a copy. You stated earlier that this was the paragraph in question:

<copyvios deleted>

Which by your admission was not an exact copy, and further, was attributed. I am sorry, but I don't feel you listed sentences which were exact copies - instead you resorted to wholesale editing for the sake of doing it. I have to agree with oldwindybear, I think you were harassing him. Your edits were just to save face in an argument you were plainly wrong on. I will let oldbear see if he wishes to revert your pointless edits, and I will back him on it if he does. Stillstudying 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be an exact copy to be a copyright violation. Even so, two of the three sentences were an exact copy, and the third was a concatenation of two more sentences. Swapping a period for a conjunction does not make it any less of a copyright violation. I suggest you spend some time at WP:C and related pages before you jump down my throat on copyright issues. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did compare them, and we honestly disagree. I printed out the article, and the websites in question, and don't feel that there was a copyright violation. I don't want to make this personal - an editor who I respect asked me to look at the article, and I did. I feel he complied with the law, (are you an attorney?), and we honestly disagree. Because he was the author, I feel he should do any additions or reversions, and I will back him if he does in restoring information I feel should not have been deleted. With all respect, I have studied the polices at WP:C and am fairly conversant with copyright law, (though I admit I am not an intellectual property attorney). I simply feel you are wrong, and personalized this. Stillstudying 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear, I leave it to you to decide whether to revert the utterly harassing and pointless edits by Butseriouslyfolks. He deleted the date the fight took place! Talk about pointless edits! He basically savaged a good article for no reason other than to save face. He could not identify one single sentence which allegedly was an "exact" copy, because they did not exist. I wanted to believe in his good faith, but when he refused to list any exact quotes, and instead ripped up the article, removing such "copyrighted" (yeah, sure!) information as the date of the conflict, I gave up. But I will certainly back you if you revert. These are bad edits, period. Stillstudying 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please be civil. I don't understand why you need to make this personal. Second, WP:C is clear: We cannot cut-and-paste sentences from other websites to create our articles here. It says on every edit screen that material copied from other websites will be deleted. My edits removed the sentences that were copied from other websites. Obviously, the date is not copyrighted, and you're welcome to put it back, as long as it's not part of a copied sentence. I'm sorry I don't have time to rewrite the article, but there are other articles with copyvios that need attention and I really should be working on my RW job. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not spend the day arguing with you either - I have a job to do also. It will be up to Bear to put it back, or revert your edits, which I have made clear I see as pointless. He had removed or changed any exact sentences and complied with WP:C -- you did not remove those, you ripped the article apart, in my judgment. I am being honest, and this is the last time I post on this. It is up to Bear how he deals with you, he asked for my opinion, and I posted it. Stillstudying 14:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you review my changes and compare them to the two articles Oldwindybear copied from, you'll see that most of them were exact copies, so he may have tried to remove the copied sentences, but he failed to do so. The other sentences I deleted merely had a word added here or there. I'm sorry you don't agree. I think it's quite clear from a copyright perspective. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did compare them, and we honestly disagree. I printed out the article, and the websites in question, and don't feel that there was a copyright violation. I don't want to make this personal - an editor who I respect asked me to look at the article, and I did. I feel he complied with the law, (are you an attorney?), and we honestly disagree. Because he was the author, I feel he should do any additions or reversions, and I will back him if he does in restoring information I feel should not have been deleted. With all respect, I have studied the polices at WP:C and am fairly conversant with copyright law, (though I admit I am not an intellectual property attorney). I simply feel you are wrong, and personalized this. Stillstudying 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetinngs Still. While I appreciate your support, I don't want to engage in an edit war. I prefer to think that Butseriouslyfolks was sincere. I put back the date, and some of the other information, and would like to move on to other articles. Let us have peace! Thanks for your efforts, both of you, the article is unquestionably fine now, which is the important thing. I believed I was correct, I might not have been, who knows? It is not worth an edit war, certainly. Still, I appreciate your strong support, but you will learn as you go along in wikipedia that you cannot take everything personally. I am not happy with his methods and I agree with you that legally there was no copyright violation, and the edits were poor ones generally, and I corrected them without restoring language in dispute. It just is not worth the argument. old windy bear 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you, as I did in the more public space of the article's talk page, for remaining civil even though you disagreed with me, and also for rewriting in your own words the sections I had challenged. Peace it shall be. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I accept your thanks with gratitude and thank you also. (Which I will also post on the public article talk space) You are a VERY experienced editor, and who knows, I might well have been wrong. I try to mentor younger editors and advise them, (Still, this is for you!), that we must work together. Thank you for working with me, and the end result is a better article, and no questions about plagerism. And I must assume you were sincerely trying to protect wikipedia given the ugly accusations against us in that sector. Peace and take care, old windy bear 17:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi oldwindybear,

I'm trying to rally people for an A-class review of the Sino-Indian War. The article is quite good, but also suffers from some heated debates. I hoped you might know a bit about the subject or have time to read about it, so you could be an informed reviewer. Thanks a lot Wandalstouring 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Hi my friend! I am honored you asked, and I do know a little about it, and will begin a crash update at once, (give me 72 hours), and I will be able to contribute to the review. What do you think of my series on the Comanche wars and the Republic of Texas, to wit: Buffalo Hump, Council House Fight, Great Raid of 1840, Battle of Plum Creek and Battle of Pease River? old windy bear 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are well sourced, but you should get one of our copyeditors to work on the stylistic issues. I will leave Carom a note, maybe he has some spare time. Wandalstouring 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Thanks, and I will get to work on the stylistic issues - that was why I wanted your input, I knew there would be areas they could use improvement. I prepared carefully, so the sourcing is good, but the style does need work, and I will begin at once. THANKS! old windy bear 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. That is one fab article you've created. It does, however, need wikifying (i.e. internal linking) - can I help or are you okay as you are ? Cheers. Pedro |  Chat  21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Greetings my friend! THANK YOU very much for the nice compliment -my grandson was doing a project in school, and complained we did not have anything online about the Comanche wars and the Republic of Texas, so I decided to rectify that! I was going to link internally tomorrow, but if you are free, help is always most welcome! Thanks again! old windy bear 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Oldwindybear. I've done a first round of wikifying, and think it links out all okay. I've made a couple of very minor changes as well and added one citation tag. There are probably links I've missed, as I'm no expert on this subject, so round two is over to your good self! Again, that's a great article. Feel free to undo anything I've done, as ever - It's a wiki world! Pedro |  Chat  21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Thanks again, both for the nice compliment, and for the help on the article! I really appreciate it, and hopefully folks will like it! It is indeed a wiki world!!! old windy bear 23

39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On 20 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Great Raid of 1840, and Council House Fight, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (t) I would suggest we add as another interesting fact that Buffalo Hump of LONESOME DOVE fame really lived, and led the Great Raid of 1840. And that Texas citizens fo the Port of Linnville escaped death during the Great Raid by going out in the water on boats, and watching while their town was burned! And that the Texas Militia and Rangers who "won" the Battle of plum Creek following the Great Raid actually abandoned fighting to split the money they recovered from the Comanche! old windy bear 13:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who is interested, I have created a new series of articles for the Military History Project on the indian wars in the Republic of Texas and on to the end of the Comanche as the Lords of the Southern Plains. Five are up and running, and several more will follow. The ones currently up:

• Buffalo Hump
• Council House Fight
• Great Raid of 1840
• Battle of Plum Creek
• Battle of Pease River

Articles on Roman Nose, and the Comancheria will follow on monday. old windy bear 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Uhud that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 08:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring I am fairly knowledgable about this battle, and will take part. THANKS for thinking about me. old windy bear 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

howdy Oldwindybear, thanks for your input and contributions to the article. i gathered the text about Khalid ibn al-Walid's emergence as a natural military commander into the battle section, and provided a few citations for it. there's one sentence[4] which was added which says "most modern accounts of the Battle center on the facts that there was no clear cut winner or loser" - most academic works i have read generally consider it a defeat for the Muslims, though the Meccans didn't press their advantage. do you have a good quality reference we can cite this to? i'm a little concerned about the current reference, because it appears to be unauthored and not peer-reviewed (and also as it's on an angelfire website). regards, ITAQALLAH 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITAQALLAH Greetings my friend. I like your wording better on Khalid, and most of the sites and sources on the Battle being indecisive are Shite, such as [5] - given that, I think we are better avoiding citing it. I like the article as is, you did a great job. old windy bear 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comment. no, i'm not discouraged at all. constructive criticism is always healthy, and most of the issues raised were quite fair. ITAQALLAH 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITAQALLAH You will correct the language and sturcture issues, and I thought you did a really good job of treading the very fine line you have to walk in assessing that particular Battle. I really think it is best to avoid the religious conflict that posting the claims of the Shia involving Ali's role. And truthfully, the bottom line is that the Meccans blew the best chance they would ever have of destroying the army of the faithful and taking Medina. old windy bear 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear, please look at the article on the movie, The Searchers. We are having a bit of a dispute there, and since you are big on history of that period - I see you wrote the article on Pease River - you might be interested. Stillstudying 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillstudying I went and looked, and agree that the article is a better one with the longer intro, and the move of the "Ethan loves Martha" issue to the plot section. old windy bear 15:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a contact for the Military history WikiProject.

Hey Bear, I volunteered you as contact for anything related to the Republic of Texas military history. I know you write extensively on that area, from reviewing your work on the Council House Fight and since the contacts are supposed to be the editors who are most knowledgable, I added that for you! If you want to delete that, please feel free, but I thought you might have overlooked it, and added it for you! Stillstudying 18:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Still, I don't mind if Kirill and the other folks in the military project don't. old windy bear 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Carom evaluated this month's entries. I took a look at the articles; they're quite good, but I think they need just a bit more work to really meet the B-Class requirements (in particular, criterion #5; infoboxes will probably be easier than images here, for what it's worth). I'd suggest adding the needed materials and then just listing the articles again for this month (along with anything else you're working on). Keep up the great work! Kirill 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Hi my friend! Thanks for the advice - I will finish up these new articles I wrote in June, and adding the infoboxes is a great idea. I have several others which I will be posting -- for instance, I am writing a military history of the Republic of Texas, which the current article on the Republic lacks. There is a need for an article on the aftermath of the Battle of San Jacinto, and the end of the War of Succession from Mexico, which I am in the process of writing also. I am also expanding the article on Peta Nocona to a full size article and listing it as part of our project since he was the foremost WAR chief of his age. That will complete the series of military history articles on the Republic of Texas. Do you have an area which you feel needs attention? If so, I will move there when this is complete, and work in that area. If you don't, I was thinking of revamping the articles on Mongol military history. We have a great dicotomy in the articles on the Battle of Baghdad, for instance, and the article on Hulagu Khan. At any rate, if you have an area which needs immediate attention, let me know, I will order the appropriate books, (if I don't have them!), and move there when my work on the Republic of Texas military history series is complete. old windy bear 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Mongols would be a good area to work on. They're quite sparsely covered among our available editors (I think you're one of only a handful of people that have really worked on them), and you're definitely in a position to improve them considerably. Thanks again for all your efforts! Kirill 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill then I will work on the Mongols. THANK YOU for your kind words on my work - I do try to contribute! (Of course NO ONE contributes more than you do!) I would like your blessing to make a list of the total articles in that area of military history and then prioritize what needs what the most. For instance, again, we have considerable areas of Mongol history that are not covered except for a mention in another article. (for instance, the Mongol-on-Mongol fighting between the Kipchaks and the Il-Khanate is not covered in a specific article, which it most certainly should be, as it was the primary reason that 1) Europe was not conquered; 2) the Mamluks were allowed to remain free and flourish; 3) the Sultanate of Rum and other of the Turkish states were allowed to remain free and lay the foundation for the Ottoman Empire. All of these are macrohistorical developments which need articles outlining their place in history!) In addition to needing new articles, we need to dramatically upgrade our older articles. I find it appalling that the Battle of Tours is so well covered, but the equally important Battle of Ain Jalut is far more sparsely so. At any rate, any input from you before I begin would be most welcome. I anticipate finishing the entire Republic of Texas military history series in the next couple of weeks, and shifting to the Mongols...old windy bear 22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

old windy bear you are not going to believe what Mytwocents did - he posted his own Bonnie and Clyde article at [[6]] - please take a look at this. If he posts this article as an alternative to the Bonnie and Clyde article, it must comport with wikipedia's articles, not represent one person's POV. Stillstudying 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillstudying Mytwocents I assume I am being asked for my opinion, so I will address this to both of you. Stillstudying, you must assume wp-good faith. Mytwocents said he put this page up to edit himself when the peer review was ongoing. He accepted the result of that peer review in good spirits, though he obviously did not agree with it all. My advice is to take his word, and do not assume bad faith on his part. It just appears to me that when he copied the page for his own editing, it inadvertantly copied the various categoies, and you discovered it thereafter. He appeared to remove most of them when he found out, and retitled it - again, please assume wp-good faith. He is a hard working editor who deserves that. You have begun to build up a good body of work also, as in your work on "The Searchers," (VERY nice job on that article rewrite!) but you must assume good faith on the part of editors who don't agree with you. Again, your work has really advanced, and you don't need needless controversy. old windy bear 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bear, I appreciate your trying to give this person a chance, but his listing of the article on the various category pages was no accident! He was effectively offering a second article of his own making. I think this is serious. It destroys all vestige of consensus. Stillstudying 11:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillstudying I have not heard from Mytwocents so I have to go by what he wrote you, that it was an edit page which simply was inadvertantly put in the public categories. I urge you to accept that, and continue your good work. The rewrite on ''The Searchers'' brought a B class article up to GA, in my opinion! Don't waste your time arguing! Keep up your good work! old windy bear 19:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw your RfA when it was malformed. I've been spending a lot of time around the RfA pages these days!  ;-) I'm happy to support you. As for the requested review, I took a quick peek and it is looking great. I don't have time for a proper read at the moment, but I will try to get to it in the next few days. See you around! -- But|seriously|folks  20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- But|seriously|folks  When you get an opportunity, I would appreciate your reviewing it in depth - I really am happy with how it turned out, but I could use an impartial opinion. As to the RfA, I hope you get your adminship, and I think you will. Thanks for your support on my adminship. I knew that Stillstudying had nominated me, but thought it had died, and went back to work on the Republic of Texas articles, I am trying to get all of them done, the whole series, and then moving on to the Mongol military era. Now it appears to be back on, so I will have to pay attention to that page myself! old windy bear 21:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now I really should have raised my concerns with your RfA via asking you an additional question, rather than 'voting' neutral. Sorry. Thanks for being so prompt & courteous in responding. Espresso Addict 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict Thank you very much for your support, and if I am elected I will try as hard as possible to be a good admin and use the tools wisely...old windy bear 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The June 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Strothra I did not want to mess up the "RETIRED" notice on your talk page, but wanted to say THANK YOU for the kind words and support!!!old windy bear 10:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin Hi my friend! As you know, I just wrote and put online 5 new articles in my Republic of Texas/Comache Wars series, Buffalo Hump, Council House Fight, Great Raid of 1840, Battle of Plum Creek. and Battle of Pease River. I also completely rewrote from beginning to end, quadrupling in size, Peta Nocona. Would you do me a huge favor, and give me your honest opinion on those articles? I would like someone who is not a military history buff, but a well versed layperson, to read them and tell me whether or not they are informative, and well written. I want them to be interesting to the lay reader! I would appreciate the help, and thanks for the good wishes on the RfA nomination; if i am elected, I will do my best! In the interim, I am winding up this series of articles, and getting ready, once they are reviewed and passed, to start the large task of rewriting virtually all of the articles in the Mongol Era, and adding additional ones. Anyway, thanks for your help in linking the articles, and if you do have time, thanks in advance for reviewing them!old windy bear 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly working my way through your articles. Might I suggest you nominate your best one (I haven't read them all, but the 1840 one is good) for GA status. Go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates and nominate one of them. You need to throw a tag onto the article's talkspace, but that's easy. Someone, who has expertise in the area, will eventually review it. I think you'll get a really good review that way. From observing two of your articles, here would be some suggestions:

1. Always wikilink everything.
2. Remember that non-Americans (even non-Texans) won't know that Austin is in Texas. So you need to say "Austin, Texas" (don't use abbreviations) and wikilink the first example.
3. Watch out for forks in the article that get long-winded. Cynthia Parker doesn't deserve a paragraph in the Pease River article. She deserves a mention (with a wikilink that will get the person to read more).
4. Don't forget to wikilink names. Even if the wikilink ends in nowhere, that just means an article needs to be written!!!!
5. Watch the NPOV. You have some sensitive articles. I didn't see any problems, so that's good.
6. Wikilink dates. You haven't done that in any of your articles.
7. Remember historical context. An article about 1840 Texas, means it's not a state yet, it's the Republic of Texas. Don't refer someone in a Wikilink to the state, when it is, in fact, the country.

Those are my suggestions. Orangemarlin 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin Thanks a great deal! They are excellent suggestions, and I am going to do them tonight and tomorrow, and then nominate the Great Raid for GA! First, I want to do the things you suggest. I am in the process of writing a paragraph of general facts to take the place of the Cynthia Parker paragraph in Pease River - there are plenty of non- Parker facts to take it's place! THANKS FOR THE HELP! I worked hard on these articles, and want to see them tip-top, which is why I asked for help!old windy bear 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin Greetings! I did what you suggested, removed the section on Cynthia Parker in Battle of Pease River, and replaced it with a different section which was on her, but in a much different context. Parker still needed to be mentioned heavily, because Pease River is primarily remembered, especially in Texas history, as the place she was "rescued." I also put "Texas" behind the cities, rewrote much of the article to add sourcing, and then nominated that article, and the Great Raid of 1840 for review. If you have a minute, would you peruse them, and let me know what you think of the changes in both? I really appreciate your help! old windy bear 01:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old, but I hear you!!! I did some tweaking to Pease River, but it is by no means in-depth or extensive. I'm concerned, when I read it, that there is a slight issue with labeling individuals racially. I'm not sure describing Parker as "white" is a good idea. There are fair skinned Native Americans, and Cynthia considered herself a member of the Comanche tribe. Maybe I'd call her European, but I don't know what is the best way to say it. And you described one individual as "Mexican-American" when I doubt that terminology was used back then. Texican is something I've heard before. Just be clear. Go for the GA status I mentioned above. You'll learn a lot. Orangemarlin 01:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin THANK YOU a great deal for the invaluable help. I am going now to do something about the racial labels. I have ot change that before I get accused of spinning things racially which is most definitely not my intention! The terrible thing about the Parker case, other than the enormous tragedy of being kidnapped twice, is that she became such a symbol - and all she wanted was to have her children and family back. Well, i really appreciate the help, and I am going to change the labels. PLEASE, if you get a chance, look at the changes, and let me know what you think! old windy bear 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and your support. It means a lot to me. Yes, I saw stillstudying's support as well. I think that shows great maturity and character. This place can be truly wonderful! Best of luck with your own RfA, although it does not appear that you need any luck there! -- But|seriously|folks  00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 But|seriously|folks  Greating there ADMIN! I am cautiously hopeful that I will also be elected - age has taught me to be cautious! LOL! I am very grateful to those who supported me, yourself included, and am hopeful I will join you as an admin, and if so, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you. (I would work with you as am editor also, but I really do believe as an admin I could make more of a difference in a positive way) I am VERY proud of Stillstudying. He was quite belligerant on occasion when he first came on board, but he has really grown. I thought his support of you was great, and reflects his personal growth. Well, again, congratulations! You earned this, and I know you will do a great job. If I do get elected, I look forward to working with you!old windy bear 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi oldwindybear

I suggest to submit Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe to an A class review.

Greetings Wandalstouring 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring Greetings my friend! I agree, and I am preparing to submitt Great Raid of 1840 for an A review also! What do you think? I do believe Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe is well written, well sourced, and ready! old windy bear 10:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a sudden server crash or massive shift in public opinion in the next two hours you will be our newest admin! Its an Outstanding Feat of Edtorialism that you have not recieved a single oppose vote. I wish you luck in mastering your new responibilities here, and patience for dealing with the headaches a promotion like this will get you involved in. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) Thank you so much. I am deeply touched that no one opposed my nomination - I have really worked the past year and a half to foster civility and to help anyone I could, and it is a nice feeling to believe that makes a difference. I will probably be asking you for advice on how exactly to master my new responsibilities - one thing age has taught me is to go easily and slowly into new things, and not to be afraid to ask questions! Again, thank you!old windy bear 02:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see your humble enough to ask for advice on how to master your new responsibilities, but I am not admin (not yet, anyway), so I have no idea how admin power(s) work here. I would be willing to bet that Kirill Lokshin and the other Military History WikiProject admin members would be happy to assist you should you have any questions or concerns. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) Thanks and I will ask Kirill - when are you going to go for admin, I would put you up?old windy bear 05:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for adminship anytime I want (you can nominate yourself, after all), but I would rather go up when someone nominates me. The way I see it a promotion to admin is like recieving a general's star: one has to be nominated based on his or her merits and approved by a vote of his fellow contributers. If and when someone decides to nominate me for adminship I will take it as a God-given sign that the community trusts me enough to grant me my general's star, and I will accept that nomination with joy. For now, I do what I can with what I have, trusting that when the time is right the Holy Spirit will move someone to nominate me for the rank of administrator and all the good and bad that goes with it :) For now though, we should celebrate your adminship! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you are looking for information on your newly acquired powers you can start by reading through the page Wikipedia:Administrators; it should give you a rough feel for the powers you now have and places where it may be useful. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, I nominated you for adminship! On a separate note THANK YOU for your support of my own nomination, and I intend to shepard yours through the process! I am just waiting for them to officially list mine as successful since the time was up 8 hours ago. I am very grateful to everyone for their support, and now, let us get you through the process!old windy bear 12:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Oldwindybear. I came across TomStar81 when doing RC patrol. If you want to nominate someone for adminship, you'll need to go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate, and follow the instructions there. The page that you've created will have to be deleted, as you've created it in article space. I'll leave it for a few minutes, in case you don't want the comments you've typed to be lost. All the best. ElinorD (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElinorD and thank you - I am gone to try again, I may have to ask you for assistance, as I seem to be having enormous difficulty with following the instructions! Now I understand why Stillstudying had so much trouble nominating me! Thanks again...old windy bear 11:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I'll create the page for you (without voting, as I have no knowledge of the candidate), and then you can fill in your support and comments. ElinorD (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElinorD Hi Elinor, I tried again at [7] would you check it and make sure it is okay, before I notify the candidate again? If it is not, I would happily accept your help, and thanks! old windy bear 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Ah, I see you've done it. That's better, except that the dates of your nomination statement and support show that you made them before the page was created. If I were you, I'd check the history to see which edit made the nomination and which edit made the support "vote", and then I'd change the times to reflect that. Hope you don't mind me jumping in like this! ElinorD (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElinorD (talk) HI Elinor, I will go correct the times. No, I don't mind you jumping in at all, quite the contrary! Only a really foolish person - which I like to think I am not -- turns down help from someone trying to assist them! You kindness is genuinely appreciated! Thanks again!old windy bear 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've deleted the original, as I think you don't need it any more. ElinorD (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElinorD (talk) Thanks again, and I really do appreciate your kindness and assistance!old windy bear 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, your RfA was successful and you are now a sysop! You may wish to add yourself to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on a succesful RfA, and good luck with the tools. :-) —Anas ^talk? 13:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana , and Anas Salloum - any advice is more than welcome! I was planning to study policy and procedure - not that I had not before, but more extensively - before leaping to use my sysop tools. Any advice is more than welcome!!! old windy bear 13:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on becoming a sysop! Politics rule 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<RI>Hey congratulations!!!! I know you're a good addition to the admin group. And between all of my editing, I'll make time to help out on your articles. Have you submitted any to GA review? Orangemarlin 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin Thanks, and yes, I submitted Battle of Pease River and the Great Raid of 1840 for GA review, so wish me luck! (also, any further editing you think necessary, the help is MOST WELCOME!) Thanks for all your help, and let me know when you want your name submitted for sysop - I think you would be a real asset. old windy bear 15:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congrats to you for the very impressive showing at RfA. Now you and I can wheel war instead of just edit warring. KIDDING!! Good luck with the new buttons, you've earned them! -- But|seriously|folks  17:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 But|seriously|folks  Thanks, and seriously, you deserved your buttons also, I was delighted you sailed through. I would enjoy working with you again, so if something comes up you need a second voice on, hollar at me.old windy bear 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Kirill 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Thank you so much! I wanted to ask your advice on how to go about using my admin buttons in the most constructive way, and in our military history project in any way you can use me. I have nominated two articles for GA review - Great Raid of 1840 and Battle of Pease River. I put the boxes in that you recommended, and exhaustively re-researched them. I am preparing to finish that series, and reenter the Mongol Era as we discussed. Kirill, that whole series, (the Mongols) is a huge mess. I am in the process of compiling a list of all articles related to their military history, and when done will submit that to you so you can tell me where to start rewriting. The quality is mixed, but not good overall, and many of them are factually in conflict. I intend on re-rewriting virtually all of them, and adding at least 10 new articles! Anyway, any advice on the admin side would be gratefully appreciated. I would like to concentrate on military history under your direction...old windy bear 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the shiny new admin buttons, I'd suggest focusing on cleanup-type work, at least initially. CAT:CSD is perpetually overflowing, and you should be able to delete a lot of perfectly obvious things from it without getting dragged into too many time-consuming disputes over them. I'm not sure whether it's really possible to concentrate your admin work in a certain topic area; the rollback button can be used on any articles you edit, but, aside from that, most admin things happen across topic boundaries.

(You shouldn't feel obligated to use the tools just for the sake of using the tools, of course; I suspect that, unless you're planning to specialize in some sort of particular admin tasks, you'll be using the tools as the need presents itself moreso than according to some set plan.) Kirill 23:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill I am too old to push shiney buttons just to push them, lol!Yeah, that was how I thought it would work - that what tasks I did would be primarily deletions, and anything else would simply be what occurs in the context of ordinary interaction. I have set aside an hour a day to work on deletions, (which is the main task I can see needing urgent attention right now) and that is added to what I already had set aside (two hours a day) on the military history projects we have discussed. If you get a chance, please do let me know what you think of the two articles I wrote which I put up for GA review - Great Raid of 1840 and Battle of Pease River. I like to think they were considering improved by the boxes you suggested, but I will wait till you get a chance to look at them! Thanks again...old windy bear 00:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently put a lot of work into improving the article Night of the Long Knives. I put it up for peer review, but haven't seen any comments yet. I see that you have have experience as a peer reviewer and I think that the article could gain from your insights. So, if you have some spare time, your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.--Mcattell 03:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mcattell I will certainly do so. When I review an article, I check all sourcing, etc., so it will take a day or two, but I am working on it now. old windy bear 04:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neranei ^T/[[Special:Contributions/Neranei|C Trust me on this, you will be a good admin, and the next time you go up, you will have my strong support, and I believe enough support to win. old windy bear 12:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You know, it's a little unbecoming of one of our newest admins to edit-war on an RFA page. Why don't you move that entire thread to the talk page, instead?--Chaser - T 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser - T You are absolutely right, and I moved it to his talk page, and even though his accusations were totally false - Tom did NOT nominate me, and I certainly never agreed to nominate him in return! - I am willing to hear him out, but only if he stops, as he himself said we should, arguing on the nomination page. Frankly, it is embarrasing, and I wish he would stop. I appreciate your help, and you are 100% right. old windy bear 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. We all reserve the right to screw up every once and a while.--Chaser - T 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaser - T Yes, but I hate doing so! Did you see the nice award Wikidudeman was kind enough to give me? it sure came at an opportune time, and lifted my spirits! old windy bear 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia and especially for your work on military related pages. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidudeman ^(talk) Well God Bless you, I am in the process of getting ready to post 7 articles I have just rewritten, (most of last night!) on our military history project, and your kindness makes it all worthwhile! Thank you so much! I am moving it to the front page, it is so nice! old windy bear 18:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel the discussion is appropriate for his RFA, I suggest we move it to the RFA's talkpage. The other solution would be moving it to WT:RFA, but notifying voters at Tom's RFA about it. But if you really think I am falsely accusing you and failing to assume good faith, I suggest that we seek mediation or arbitration. New England 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England I sincerely appreciate your moving this discussion here. I did not ever, in any form, say that I nominated TomStar81 for any reason other than I felt he should be an admin. i was startled to find out he was not, frankly, as the page shows. I certainly never said, in any way, that I nominated him for reformatting Stillstudying's nomination. Those are totally false accusations. If you wish to continue making them, I will gladly submit it to mediation or arbitration. I don't feel this matter is appropriate for the nomination page, and won't have it there, because they are totally false accusations which, as you noted correctly, raises issues not related to the nomination. You yourself said - which is why I stopped discussing it there - that arguing about it called attention to false charges. New England, it is up to you. I would suggest you go look, and you will find that Stillstudying not only made the original nomination, but shepherded it through the process! You will find he said, among other things, at [8] that "That level of trust is what will make him a great admin, and why I nominated him. Stillstudying 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" Nor was that his only statement on his nomination of me! Tom did, as 65 other people did, support me. If you wish to check the record, and let this go, I am fine with that. I am in the process of writing articles! If you wish to ask for mediation or arbitration, fine, but some sort of discipline would be in order, because I believe this kind of slander really detracts from the encyclopedia. It is sad, but false accusations are one reason more people will not run for admin. old windy bear 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our little debate has been moved to the RFAs talk page, and notice was given on the RFA. Mediation and Arbitration seem uneeded. New England 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back the addition to the RfA talk page, and removed the notice. You simply cannot hurl false accusations about and put notices about "debates" which are totally false accusations. I told you, the matter can be discussed here, or your talk page, or we can go to mediation or whatever. I think you need to be disciplined, frankly. If you put anything else on the nomination page or the nomination talk page, since the accusations are totally false, I will block you again. And this time I won't lift it. Please confine your false claims to this page.old windy bear 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]