User talk:Argos'Dad/Archive 2

Kingdom of Greece
I removed the image as well as the navbox for the House of Oldenburg-Glücksburg to make the article look better. Just because an image is in the PD doesn't mean it should be in the article.

I do agree with you that I was remiss in not discussing this in the article's talk page. I also agree that the stamp portraying 5 of the kings is indeed relevant.

Perhaps if the article had some more text, the location of the image would not appear so odd. May I suggest adding the images to the Commons area and creating an wiki link to all the images that don't fit in the article? Something like -- Kimon talk 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the layout, and I am intending on expanding the article to discuss the Greek concept of the Dedilomeni Principle and the Venizelos-Constantine struggles that defined the Crowned Democracy. I don't object to you adding wikilinks for now until we can expand the article appropriately.Argos&#39;Dad 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (duplicate of User talk:Kimonandreou) Ok, I'll start on that and post the wikilink to the article. I'm sure between the two of us, we can make this a great article. -- Kimon talk 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 09:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VII (III) - March 2007
The March 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 15:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:SimaVasileion.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SimaVasileion.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your question on WP:VPT
I took a look at Image:SimaVasileionEllados.svg and it appears to embed a PNG file located at C:\Documents and Settings\Steve &amp; Brian\My Documents\Steve's Pictures\Wikimedia\SimaVasileion4.PNG. Since we don't have access to your hard drive, it doesn't work that well. ;) As for how to fix that, I wouldn't begin to know how to tell you except to just upload the PNG directly. --BigDT 01:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Maria Callas
Out of curiosity, what led you to assess Maria Callas as a B-class article? It is thorough, well-written, well-sourced, and has many relevant images. I note you also have not yet provided any discussion of your rating in the appropriate place. Robert K S 10:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Blackstone GA onhold
It says you can reevaluate in 2-7 days from 4/15. Give us a few days please. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 7 days will be fine. I will toss a message if done sooner. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a disclaimer. Is this a satisfactory resolution of your qualms? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Archimedes
The article Archimedes you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Archimedes for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. LordHarris 11:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Cornell GA
Is it possible to put Paul Cornell back on hold. I never knew it was on hold. I will address your concerns tomorrow. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am working on Paul Cornell (Chicago). I have found many capitalization errors.  I am not sure if Central Depot is a name or generic term.  I have not found apostrophe errors. Would you like me to convert the print Encyclopedia of Chicago references to online version references?  I am at the Blackstone Library which is the main library serving Hyde Park today.  I do not see any other reference books citing Paul Cornell. So I don't know how to broaden his article.  I will venture to the main stacks to see what I can find. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found a little more info by the way. Let me know what to do about relisting for GA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed you have done some copyeditting of Paul Cornell (Chicago). Did you have any thoughts on GA reconsideration and on whether I should go with the print or online citations for the EOC? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue VIII (IV) - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Greece 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.--Yannismarou 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

American Airlines @ Portland Jetport
I noticed your recent addition to the Portland International Jetport's article included service by American Airlines to ORD and DFW. American has not serviced Portland since 2002, and I was not aware of any plans to return. Though, if you do have a source for this information, I would very much like to see it. If these flights are to come true, I would gladly see them back into the article. Thanks. --KPWM_Spotter 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem.  I was almost hoping that you knew something that I didn't...I would love to see American Airlines back at PWM.  Oh well.    But, yes, PWM is the Portland International Jetport in Portland Maine.  PDX is the Portland International Airport...slight difference, but a continent away...  --KPWM_Spotter 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anaximander
In your recent additions to the article, you have given footnote references in the Interpretation section. However, the books you provided in the notes are not at all consistent with the article. The books by Nietzsche and Heidegger are not the same than the ones given in the secondary sources. Is there a reason? — Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heidegger mentions Anaximander in many places. But the section called Anaximander's Saying is really in Off the Beaten Track.
 * Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks is also more accurate. The Werke you mention was published in 1954. Nietzsche died in 1900. So it is not an original edition, but probably his complete work.
 * References taken on websites should always be verified... Otherwise, we're Off the Track [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]]
 * Robin des Bois &#9816; &#10163; &#9993; 09:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:HellenicNavy.png
You've had more than two months. No proof has been provided either here on Wikipedia or apparently to the OTRS team that this image was published in the United States before 1923. Two months is more than sufficient time for you to have obtained this proof. It has been appropriately retagged as a fair use image, and as such since it is not used in any articles it is "orphaned" and will be deleted from Wikipedia unless it is used in an actual main namespace article. I am reverting your removal of the orphaned tag because the image is not used. Since this debate refuses to end, I am now per my earlier assertions taking this to WP:AN/I for another set of eyes to look at it. Regards, --Durin 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. . Thanks, --Durin 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek ship names
Hello and welcome back from your Wikibreak! Indeed, in Greek texts, ship names are often capitalized for reasons of emphasis. But this is in no way universal or official (as far as I am aware of) practice, nor does it apply to English articles... The current form is fine, I think. About the ensign vs. jack, I agree, since the ensign is more recognizable to most people. Cheers, Cplakidas 12:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Argos'Dad, thanks a whole lot for the Designer's Barnstar. There's more imagery to follow:) Cheers! - Badseed 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bratislava
Thanks a bundle for the great input and the GA pass on this article. I'm thinking WP:PR is a good next step, how about you? — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 20:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece Newsletter - Issue IX (V) - May 2007

 * Geia! The photo: IMO it is not so clear in such a small scale (in the banner it is bigger and clearer). That is why I preferred to replace the old map with the clearer flag-map, but again if you and other members prefer the Acropolis picture no problem from me. Yes, I think you are right: we should have in the newsletter something about the most recent to-dos. I'll have it in mind for the next one. About the GAs and FAs: do you mean in the newsletter or somewhere else? It also seems an interesting idea, keeping in mind that the newsletter should remain concise.--Yannismarou 21:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Euxaristw
Thank you for the invitation to WikiProject Greece. User:Ellhnida

OR concerns - or not?
I beg to differ - I would like to see these unverified claims. Most of what there is is fact - the Greek and Catholic Churches did not trust each other after 1204 and the Ottomans rose to power. I would like to bring in a third party to suggest yes or no to your suggestions. Also, without sounding personal or unfriendly, you yourself have stated a lack of knowledge on this period. I however, have several references, which have been added to the article and have been used as a basis for every claim made. Please point out where you think there is original research, don't simply speculate, prove it. Show me where and I shall show you ample proof if I can. Tourskin 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip Sherrard, Great Ages of Man Byzantium, Time-Life Books
 * Madden, Thomas F. Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2005
 * Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005
 * Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002
 * Grant, R G. Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2005
 * Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey, 2003.

Regards, Tourskin 20:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your reply, which was well mannered and chivalrous. Not that I expected it not to be. Thansk for the advice, no ones really been telling me how to improve this. I think theres enough out there to make it an FA. Maybe I'm too ambitious. Thanks again, Tourskin 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I added references to the places that you suggested and removed any pieces of information that could not referenced. I don't think I removed a claim without adding a similar on that was easier to reference too, so no drastic change to the content. Also, as for the name change, I agree that Analysis isn't exactly great. I thought "Conclusion" might do, but Analysis sounds a little better to me. Effects of the war has its own sub paragraph so I can't use tha as the main paragraph's title. Any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks, Tourskin 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eleusinian Mysteries
Thanks for your work cleaning up the Eleusinian Mysteries article. Good job! Just one question--how come you chose to remove the informative parenthetical about the seasonal variation in Greece? (I.e., that the unproductive season comes in summer, but the Demeter myth is usually interpreted as referring to winter?) Robert K S 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See, for example, this scholarly article on the subject. (You may be able to access JSTOR articles through your local library's web site; sign in with your library card number.)  In any case, the title page, which you can enlarge to read, gives the gist of the author's proposal, one that has been the subject of debate and is worthy of mention in the Wikipedia article. Robert K S 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image for Vasilefs Georgios
Hello Argos! I saw the you uploaded as the Vasilefs Georgios. I am curious as to where you found it, because it looks nothing like the ship. It should look similar to Vasilissa Olga. The current image looks rather like a corvette or a patrol ship, and nothing like a WW2 destroyer, plus, the numbers on the side are wrong... Regards, Cplakidas 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment of Ancient Greek cuisine
Hi! You assessed this article as start-class. I realize I'm not the best person to question this, being its main author, but I cannot but wonder what you find lacking. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Sealtexas.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sealtexas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sealtexas.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sealtexas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Urban Debate League
Since I failed this article two days ago I'm not going to go and revert your judgment but it seems to me that a lot of the article is unsourced and appears to be the personal observations of hte author (he is a member of the debating club). Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Houston
Thank you for becoming a participant! Your expertise in the areas you mentioned will surely benefit the project. Please feel free to discuss anything related to the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Houston and add/update the collaboration items at WikiProject Houston. Also, please add the project banner/article assessment template for every new project-related article you create. The templates are found here: WikiProject Houston/Resources. Thanks again, Postoak 05:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:SupCtChJustice
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:SupCtChJustice, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:SupCtChJustice fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''This template is no longer in use and may be deleted. Please remove, thank you!''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:SupCtChJustice, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
Hey, rearding the debate as to whether or not it was decisive, I'm getting a little impatient at Kurt's lack of evidence. I presented a large amount of evidence at his talk page and an argument which he has just responded to by saying its irrelevent without saying why.

Regards,

Tourskin 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

David B. Culberson
Hi. You are off to such a great start on the article David B. Culberson that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 04:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Society of the Song Dynasty
Hi Argos'Dad, I am glad that you've chosen to review the article, one that I've put a lot of work into. Addressing some of your concerns so far, I have expanded the lead considerably to incorporate all of the recently added material and new sections, while I have also edited every sentence that you designated as needing rewording. I have not yet addressed your suggestions for expanding info on Song politics and commerce, but I have so far addressed many of your concerns. I expanded the Social class sub-section with new info on artisans and craftsmen as well, and the scholar officials' viewpoint that they should be respected more than the merchants. I also provided a lot of information about architectural engineers and writers, and their highly venerated status despite being traditionally lower in society than the scholar-officials.--PericlesofAthens 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind your concerns for adding more info on politics into the Society article, there is a substantial amount of info on Song politics located in the related sister article History of the Song Dynasty. In regards to expanding info on commerce, there is a substantial amount of related material already found in Economy of the Song Dynasty. If there is any information from these two articles that you think should be incorporated into the Society article, please let me know. Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 20:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon your request, I have created and completed a new Politics sub-section for the article, and included its necessary information in the lead paragraph of the article's intro. I hope this suits your request.--PericlesofAthens 12:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Otto of Greece
See notes on its talk page for its GA status.  T Rex  | talk  05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Little Robe Creek
Good morning - when you get a chance, at your convenience, could you assess this article, which was a crucial battle between Native Americans and Anglo-American forces? Thanks, John1951 13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. I need to know what exactly you consider original research in order to rewrite anything which violates WP:OR. I am uncertain what you are referring to, but certainly will rewrite anything which violates guidelines, but I must know exactly what is being referred to. Thanks! John1951 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! I THINK I saw what you were referring to, and corrected the errors - I stres again, I THINK I corrected the errors which I missed the first time. Let me know, when you have time - and if I am wrong, I will go back and correct again, or till you are satisfied. Your assistance in directing this new article towards an A or GA is really very greatly appreciated. John1951 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To Argos ' Dad, help and thanks again!
ArgosDad, I am EXTREMELY grateful for the assistance you gave in pointing out the weaknesses in my new article on the Battle of Little Robe Creek. You advised, and I did, the following: This article so far has been rated as low in importance. Historically, it really should be much higher. Not for the reasons you might think - though Fehrenbach of course labels it a vicious massacre. It is actually of high importance because:
 * removed all POV and weasal words, and added explanations where it had previously appeared slanted towards the Comanche viewpoint;
 * added pictures, images, mapes, and details which should help with its classification;
 * rewrote every section you had identified as being a potential trouble spot.
 * 1. It marked the first time, on the eve of the civil war, that a state openly defied the federal government, raised it's own military, and marched into a territory in specific and very wanton defiance of federal statutory law and treaties.
 * 2. Over decades to come, it marked the beginning of the end of the Plains Indias, their military and their culture.  The combination of Ranger tactics, adopted themselves from the Comanche, and new technology, repeating rifles and rapid fire and reload handguns, combined to end the nomad's advantages, and rendered the world's finest ever light cavalry obselete.

Please let me know how you think I did in following your instructions to re-write, and add such items as images and maps. I have learned a great deal from you, and would really appreciate any other advice you could give me before I get ready to post my next new article. THANKS AGAIN,John1951 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Otto of Greece
The article Otto of Greece you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Otto of Greece for eventual comments about the article. Well done!  T Rex  | talk  10:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:LAGovsSuccessionBox
A template you created, Template:LAGovsSuccessionBox, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the  tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Little Robe Creek
I just saw the revisions you did on my article - and you are a far better writer than I am, period. The article is 100% better for your work. THANKS. John1951 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

James W. Parker
I left you a message on my talk page about this new article I just posted. I really beg for your assistance in helping me improve my work, as I explain there, before I undertake to post a total rewrite and expansion of a hugely important military history article. The details are at  - thanks in advance for all your kind help in teaching me. John1951 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I obviously am extremely grateful for the rewrite - you are a much better writer than I am. I thought this man was an interesting person - certainly Texas Historians consider him so, given the length of the article on him online through the Historical Society, and other online Histories.  If you could give me any pointers on how to better write, I would be grateful.  I have the huge rewrite on the Battle of Heliopolis which I am getting ready to post after I am satisfied I have learned all I can on the James Parker article - again, any constructive critisim you can offer would be greatly appreciated.  Do you think I did a better job on this article than I did on Little Robe Creek?  I tried to use what you taught me last time, so I am curious whether you thought I did better.  Well, thanks again for the rewrite.  Wasn't he an incredible man?  NINE years going into the Comancheria, with them knowing, the last few, from traders, that he was out there, and searching for him, as he searched for his family - and yet he was able to survive!  Anyway, again, any critiques would be welcome, did I do better this time?  Thanks, John1951 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * John, the article is really interesting and you did a really good job with it! I guess the only advice I can give is to learn more wikimarkup and copy other pages for format and style. Still, as I said, everyone has different skills and you seem to be a good article starter.  As for Battle of Heliopolis, that sounds like a good next project. Best regards,  Argos '  Dad  01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I am glad you liked the subject of the new article - I think James W. Parker had an absolutely fascinating life, and obsessed or not, he sure had courage of a remarkable sort.  The records make clear that the last five years of his annual forays into the Comancheria, the Comancheros had sold him out to the Comanche, who were searching for him!  Yet he went anyway!  I found it fascinating.  Thank you for thinking I start new articles well - then we make a good team, because you take my raw work, and polish it into a fine article!  I am going to try one more new one as a final test, let you check it, and then if all systems are go, post the huge rewrite of the Battle of Heliopolis article.  I will certainly beg for your help on that!  My last warm up will be posted tomorrow night, and I will post the link here, asking for your critique, and again, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP AND TEACHING ME. John1951 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Plummer being rewritten, as a warm up for a major article rewrite
Good evening! I did my final (if you feel I am ready), warm up for the Battle of Heliopolis by selecting a less important topic which had a stub instead of the article it warranted, and totally rewriting it, extending, in the process, the article from 240 words to 4,253. A link to the article before I rewrote it completely is and the link to the rewritten article is

I hope I am not imposing on you, but what I need is your outstanding editor's eye towards these questions:
 * 1. did the article before the rewrite lack vital information (such as the fact that Rachel Plummer wrote the first published account of a European captive among the Plains Indians, with an invaluable look at their culture!)?
 * 2. did the article after the rewrite add valuable information on a person who is certainly considered significant in Texas history?
 * 3. Am I ready to do the same thing to a far more macrohistorically vital event, the Battle of Heliopolis?
 * 4. Is it too great an imposition to ask you to effectively work with me - with my doing the research and a rough draft, and your rewriting the rewrite, and polishing it into an effective article?

I greatly appreciate your insights, your help in rewriting, and your help, period. I thank you in advance for your help in this and for the Battle of Heliopolis rewrite, which is ready, if you think this one shows I am ready. John1951 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)