User talk:BusterD/Archive 5

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Civil War...
I didn't accuse anyone of vandalism. I put rv for (revert). You must just have glanced at the edit summary.

GordonUS (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might wish to scan through WP:G. Compare rv with rvv. LeadSongDog (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits
Thanks for the positive words, I really appreciate it. I will try and be more careful. Just for info I am doing all the petty edits now. Next I am going to start adding the harder stuff like infoboxes and person data. When I start doing this I admit I will definately need to review each page before hitting save. Let me know if you have any other suggestions for edits. I have mostly been concentrating on US Military biographies but I have pretty much hit every one between the current day and the American Civil War. I realize this may seem strange rather than making sure 1 page is updated before moving on but I think I can cover more ground this way much faster.--Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Civil War article
Blunder corrected -- thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely good friends with the president of The Gay Straight alliance at Joe E. Newsome High school and everything I posted about him is true. If you wish I can provide his contact info so you can verify.d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.11.210 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Regarding, I am inclined to believe it is yet another sock of. There is an extensive SSP page open, along with an old CU request that was successful in identifying more socks. At this point, we are going towards a community ban.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the one?
I always did get that warm and fuzzy feeling when I watch Star Wars ;o) Seriously though, I really like what you said, and make your intentions clear. I may borrow it when I fix up my own user page. I strongly believe that the Wikipedia mission statement should be "Data quality", and not quantity. Consequently it will not surprise you if I tell you that I am currently battling not over missing letters, but over something even smaller. BTW, what's the process with reporting incivility? I have been accused of it (and banned for a day), but I have never had to report it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take care of this ASAP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Hi, please have3 a look at the history there. I restored the page, but it seems that the previous restore was by a bot, so I'm not sure how that worked. I don't know that many administrators, and you happen to be the one I have been in contact with recently, so I hope you don't mind the request.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page
JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NIce try to save
But it was deleted after your comment...did you find anything about him that would be sufficient to recreate the article?--MONGO 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I came to it, the article was one sentence, but listed his NYTimes obit and another source for famous Connecticutians. I found the four sentence obit, and used it to build the article up to about 6 sentences, but just as I found the online edition of the Connecticut reference (which had a two page bio on the guy, family life, education, the shebang), I found that another admin had closed the AfD as delete. I complained meekly to that admin, but when he offered to restore and relist, I declined. I'd rather spend the extra time on my sandbox or on my watchlist. So I'm learning something (especially not to get overly involved with individual deletion discussions). I might have used the rescue template (and will next time). User:Jerry seems a good sort, so the week has been very productive already. Lots to do at AfD; a normal editor could work there all day and not catch up. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman
I agree that Huffington Post is a biased source, but I'm using it only for the screen cap of Iseman's bio from the firm. It's available at other places, but the Huffington Post's is the one easiest to view.

Adam_sk (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how important it is, but I wanted to say that I disagree with your assessment that Vicki Iseman is not a public figure. She may or may not be a general public figure, but she certainly seems to meet the requirements of a limited purpose public figure, which are the following: 1. A public controversy (McCain-Iseman allegations foster discussion, debate and dissent among the relevant community, therefore a public controversy exists by law.); 2. Was the person involved in the controversy? (without her there is no controversy); 3. Is the subject matter germane to the controversy? The 3rd step is kind of not really an issue for determining if she is a public figure, but whether the subject applies to the limited purpose in which she is a public figure. Failureofafriend (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it!  Cbrown1023   talk   20:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman
I just want you to know that I appreciate your thoughtful comments at this AfD, even if I disagree with them, and I appreciate the work that editors have done on the article, even though I don't think it should exist and I think the work was a serious, if good-faith mistake. If you think any of my very vociferous arguments at the AfD discussion imply something worse, I'll review them. Just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't respect your thoughtfulness. Noroton (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman and Al Gore III
You argued (correctly, IMO) for deletion of the article on Al Gore III, which had no business on Wikipedia, but were one of the more ardent opponents of deleting or redirecting the article on Vicki Iseman, which is a similar case of coatracking and guilt-by-association. I'm curious why that is the case; your mentions of "partisan bitterness" at the Gore AFD indicates you are aware of the possible political implications of retention of one article and the removal of another. I don't want to go over the arguments I presented at AfD and DRV (which in any case don't have anything to do with partisan concerns), but I am curious as to why you feel the two should be handled differently.  Horologium  (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your asking in such a civil way. I can't deny similarities between the two processes, but 1) I saw the two arguments through different filters, 2) I thought the subjects of the two articles came by their notabilities in distinctly different ways, and 3) In my view, the two articles were constructed of completely different sorts of raw material.
 * Different filters: In this view I admit inherent bias. I came to the Al Gore III page through recent changes, as I remember it. I had no axe to grind and was merely defending the pedia in my best fashion (initially from common BLP things like birthday insertion). In the case of Vicki Iseman, I was present from the first moment (one of the very few times I've been watching a controversial page since its genesis). I believe this comment best describes my mindset at the time. Until this am (on Tony's talk), when I pledged never to edit any of those pages again, I still considered myself a minor but guiding contributor to the Iseman page. So in the Iseman AfD process, I was basically defending my own trust in my own work, and said so from my first post on AfD.
 * Different notability: One of the subjects lives in the public eye primarily through accident of birth, and the other chooses to transact private business under constant public scrutiny, arranging meetings between very influential people. In my mind this is the clearest difference between the two subjects, at least as it regards whether the pedia should support pagespace for either. One of the subjects had no choice in notability, the other made choices which gained her notability, and perhaps even notoriety.
 * Different construction: Because Al Gore III hadn't really done anything notable, by necessity his page was constructed of a string of well-sourced anecdotes which either referred to injuries which happened when he was a minor, or drug and traffic offenses. Every issue was just a coat, and the subject was the unfortunate rack used to bash one of his parents. A look at the current Vicki Iseman page shows a very different (I might characterize, very positive) collection of materials, equally well sourced. I don't see a single uncomplimentary sentence on the page. To milk the analogy, no coats to be found. Metaphorical rack isn't used to bash anyone, not even page subject. And the current page looks virtually identical to the one Doc nominated for deletion, at my urging. So very different on the merits of the page itself, both as it regards appropriateness and content.
 * So these represent very different goalposts, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

asking for your support
Good day, I am soliciting your input and support for reinstating an article that I wrote called Leo J Meyer. Col Meyer was a soldier who started out in pre WWII National Guard ranks. After being called to Federal service and serving in the Pacific for most of 1942 he attended USAAF OCS in Miami Beach Fl along with several Hollywood personalities. His squad Sergeant was William Holden. He continued thru the war to Japan and returned after it to NYNY. He reenlisted in the National Guard and then transferred back onto active duty. He managed to get his commission reinstated and spent the rest of his time on active Army until retiring as a Colonel in 1971. He actually participated in combat in three wars and was awarded three Combat Infantryman Badges (read the article and the article on the CIB to learn the significance).

Besides telling a story of a man who “just wanted to be a soldier” I intended to wet the whistle of readers with a glimpse of US Army history (federalization of NG, WWII enlisted rank system, etc) hoping to encourage further investigation and learning of that history via Wikipedia.

I began posting the article to Wikipedia in late November 2007. By late January 2008 I felt the military biography was essentially complete without telling anecdotal stories about him and his friends like Hugh Casey for whom Camp Casey, Korea was named. That would only point out his personality and not necessarily be encyclopedic. At the end of January 08 a Wikipedia Administrator nominated the article for deletion. Although there were a couple of administrators who participated in the discussions who supported leaving the article, the decision was made to delete.

Obviously I feel that the Military Biographical Article falls in line with other articles of soldiers like Meyer’s friend Frederick Weyand whose article was the example I followed.

I found that those people who participated in the AfD did not read everything published or what was there very clearly, i.e. I hade posted an image of an article from an Army publication which addressed Meyer’s earning his parachute wings at age 51 and I had included from the get go the title of a book about Scrimshaw in which some of his art work was published by the books author. One complaint about this later was that there was no ISBN. I could not find one but I have found the Library of Congress Catalog numbers for the two books referenced.

I have modified the article and it is currently at User:Meyerj user page. I am inviting you to read it and if you support reinstating it, helping me to do so.

Thank you for your time. Meyerj (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer== ==

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj located at Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. MrPrada (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Blank pages, blank look
I haven't blanked any pages, and yet you keep mucking up my Talk Page with demands that I quit blanking pages. Get a life! Leave me alone! Jeh akuse (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeh akuse
I was thinking about a 24-48 hour block, but after seeing him make a gross personal attack at the Temple Lot article, I decided to go indef. Blueboy96 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And these two wonderful sallies confirm it. Blueboy96 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That personal attack, plus the fact he blanked others' userspace--pretty easy call to indef. Pretty much a troll ... we don't need him. Blueboy96 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Having difficulty
Done and done, Buster.  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ACW Portal
I nominated it for featured portal status. Wondering what your thoughts are on adding a "Featured Picture" table above the "Selected Picture" one? There are numerous ACW featured photos that have been approved recently. MrPrada (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for rating Alden Partridge
Hello! thanks for asking me my rationale of that assessment. Well let me tell you in points:


 * Referencing and citation:Some sections were lacking in text citations, like the Works and sub-sections of Private military educator sections.


 * Coverage and accuracy:I think the information regarding his Early life and Personal_life isn't enough. I may be wrong in this.


 * Structure:About structure my opinion is that LEAD section is too short.

Again I may be wrong in this if you don't agree with me please tell me or ask for assessment from a senior member. -- S M S  Talk 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of religious wars
I have userfied the article as requested at deletion review. The talk page contained nothing that I could see as useful and this version of the article looks to be the best version available. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to bring the article to deletion review before recreating it so long as it is not a straight recreation of what was deleted before. You would not be 'contesting' the previous deletion and if an article can be created that addresses the policy concerns that would be fine. I think that in order for such a list to meet the policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV each item in the list would need to have a reference to it being a 'religious' war. If that was done then personally I think there would be no problem. Davewild (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh forgot to say that if you do use any of the content I have userfied for you, let me know when the article is recreated and I will restore the history in order to ensure we are compliant with the GFDL. Davewild (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:American Civil War/Selected article
Just wanted to let you know that I reverted your changes to this Portal. Not for vandalism or unconstructive edits, but for some reason, whatever your edits were made this show up as a candidate in WP:CSD. There must be some transcluded page or template that was causing this. Anyway, if you can figure the reason why, that's great, because I just put a band-aid on it which unfortunately, was a reversion of your edits. Obviously, feel free to revert my revert to fix it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I've created a public use account, User:BusterD public
In the future, I intend to log in from any non-home location using the new account. I hope this action might provide an extra hurdle to any who might one day for whatever reason choose to compromise my normal use account. BusterD (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for reminding me! BusterD (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, there!
 * If I may, I'd like to point out that the login page has a number of suggestions on how to deal with this scenario; I believe that they are applicable to your concerns.
 * I hope that all is well with you.
 * NBahn (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Portal:American Revolutionary War
It looks good to me. As I said, you have much more recent experience with the featured portal process than I do; so I'm happy to follow your lead in regards to what's going to be required of us now. :-) Kirill 15:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ACW Portal
Thanks a lot, its no trouble. I love the ACW. Have you thought about a system similar to Portal:Ohio and their (Template:OhioSB for bio, SA for article, SP for picture) for rewarding authors/contributors? MrPrada (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd given that some thought a while ago, but didn't do anything about. It's not a bad system; it draws attention to the portal, and since the ACW portal runs on time dynamics, the templates could be applied to the appropriate pages just before the display week. It means about ten to fifteen extra edits a week, so very doable. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where's the selected event? Do you mean the "Grand Parade of the States"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:American Civil War
Congratulations, you've done some really great work with this portal, and it is worthy of the WP:FPORT status. Your idea of a "good portal" designation is interesting, albeit not something that we have for WP:FLs, WP:FPs, WP:FTs, etc. - but I also think that between WP:PPREV and WP:FPOC, people active in reviewing/contributing to the portal-space projects have their hands full, another area/subset would just be too confusing. But I'm glad that you are going to contribute in some of those other areas, and I'm glad that you learned a lot from working on this portal. In the future, it might be fun for you to try a different, purely randomized model on another portal instead of the "queue", in the long run it can be much easier to maintain. Cirt (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob, let me know if you need any help with Portal:American Revolutionary War as it moves along, I'm busy with a couple other ongoing portal drives, but I'll try to take a look at it soon. Cirt (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lighten Up!
You just totally pwn3d that stupid high schooler. Can I not appreciate witnessing Wikipedia justice being enacted swiftly before me eyes? That account was nothing but vandalism. You did a good deed and I wanted to give you some mad props and taunt the person who failed. It's even better knowing that he can't fight back, because he is now banned. --129.74.108.157 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the trolls. And a ban is not the same as a block. Dorftrottel (canvass) 15:11, April 9, 2008

Your Sherman inquiry
Thanks for your message to Hartfelt. I'm not sure, mechanically, how to respond to your offer to help so I will try posting this. I edited the Sherman piece and added a new footnote 4 in conjunction with my edits. For some reason the text of footnote 4 was in bold. It took me several attempts but I was eeventually able to get rid of the bolding, so I'm OK now. (I hope this gets thru to you.) Hartfelt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartfelt (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

+BusterD, I still don't really know what I'm doing mechanically, but I got your acknowledgement. It will be interesting to see what happens. People seem to love the "Tecumseh Sherman" story, but leading Sherman scholar (who included the story in his 1993 biography) has now written that the new Ohio History article makes "a convincing case about Sherman's name." Marszalek, "Preface," p. xiv-xv n.1, to the 2007 reissue of "Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order." (Again, hope I am doing this messaging right.) Hartfelt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartfelt (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

+BusterD, Thanks for your several posts, and esp your reaction to the Marszalek evaluation of the new info. I have revised footnote 4 to add the Marszalek info and hope that will help people evaluate the info and see why the overall edits have been posted. I also used the "preview" button and thereby avoided some of the technicl problems I had earlier. Thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:British Army
I was wondering if you could spare the time for peer review this portal? The editor has been slaving away pretty much by himself and really wants input from others. I know you're busy, which makes your input, if you can manage it, so much more appreciated. :) All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * THanks very much :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sherman navigational box
Hello, BusterD. Thanks. Would you mind if I change the new title to reference the monument somehow? I made no judgments, just followed what the monument says. Hartfelt (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

+OK, BusterD, thanks for your quick response. I appreciate your expertise. About your 100% comments, it seems to me that this navigational box is a very worthwhile addition (if I may say so as the person who posted it) because it makes readily available to anyone interested a systematic list of WTS's engagements compiled much closer to the war and gives links to all of them. This may help assure fuller coverage. Until recently, for example, the page did not mention the relief of Knoxville or the Meridian expedition. Anyway, thanks again. You certainly are on top of things, picking up on this almost immediately. Is Sherman something you particularly watch? Hartfelt (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?
Could you please explain more fully what you meant here?

Are you saying you are one of the article's original creators, but that you are now giving up?

Are you saying someone or something convinced you to change to your mind?

What do you mean by: "May I be seen as munching raven on wild rice today?"

What, in the name of heck, is a "cooked corbie"?

I, for one, would appreciate it if participants in afd held back from using opaque language. Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I understood your raven joke right away, and understood the "corbie" reference a moment later. (It might have been less opaque if you had used "corvie" a la Corvis cornix.) The self-deprecating humor was fine, and it made me smile, which was probably your intention.  Horologium  (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We are all volunteers here. You have no obligation to explain yourself.  I agree with your original position.  You haven't explained why you changed your mind and adopted your current position.


 * We are supposed to respect consensus here. But I don't think this requires us to give in to, well, peer pressure.


 * IMO you had nothing to apologize for in your initial comments.


 * In response to Hologoim's comment -- I think they are giving you very bad advice. I have nothing wrong, in general, with humor that doesn't attack others, including self-deprecating humor.  I am going to encourage you however to be more careful to refrain from self-deprecating humor that will appear opaque to wikipedians who are not your friends, don't know your posting history, will not understand you when you are joking.  Such opaque attempts at humor are, no doubt inadvertent, lapses from compliance with WP:BITE.


 * Candidly Geo Swan (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure why you chose to post on this talk page. You seem to think someone's been advising me, or I've been accepting advice on this subject, or lately I've been succumbing to peer pressure. Further, you seem to think I have "friends" in this process. Thanks loads for your confidence and good faith in my judgment. Your posts on this page appear to be asking me to
 * 1) explain my reasons for changing my mind
 * 2) refrain from posting any humor you judge opaque
 * All of this comes in the context of your statements:
 * 1) I have no obligation to explain myself
 * 2) (implied) I shouldn't be listening to bad advice
 * It appears you didn't read very much of the discussion on the referenced talk pages. One reason I expected User:Horologium (and other participants in the entire Vicki Iseman process) to understand my comments without annotation is because I had predicted I might end up on the losing side of this argument eventually, specifically referencing crow and eating.
 * In the future I would ask that you:
 * 1) Listen to your own advice more
 * 2) Offer that advice to others less
 * 3) Read the relevant talk pages associated with an AfD to understand the context of comments made in said process before you attempt to advise other editors-in-good-standing on what humor may be used in such process
 * 4) Understand that communication such as this may have the appearance of attempting to unduly influence my actions both as an editor and as a participant in process
 * It would not be out of line for me to tell you to "buzz off" since you've insulted me (no doubt inadvertently) by judging my current actions as a mere by-product of others' influence. I'll choose not to do so, but instead ask you not to give me more advice (not to listen to "bad" advice). BusterD (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might notice some activity on Battle of Ball's Bluff
I own all the standard sources, so I'm going to build this article up. Don't be shy about feedback or editing boldly. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am boldness personified. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion, please.....
On this page I have been accused of creating a straw man argument. I would prefer to believe that I have not, but I am naturally biased and thus need an outside opinion. If you would be kind enough to provide one to me privately (at your own convenience, of course) then I will be greatly obliged to you. For background information on the whole dispute, you can go here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbahn (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I got "and", "but", and "or",
They'll get you pretty far.

Thanks for the laugh TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the formal process is even more reason to lighten things up when appropriate. It saves all of our sanity. I can't find it now but there was a good humor barn star that I gave for a couple of laughs in AfD -- can't find it now but consider yourself starred :) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think any AfD regardless of the outcome needs participation in order to truly have consensus. 2 -1 or similar in either direction is nowhere near consensus. I may not agree with some of the views presented but I'll always read them -- I stepped away from the back and forth because we were just re-hashing the same argument and it was clear that we weren't going to move forward so that's why I'm just reading until/unless a new point is made that needs addressing. I'll happily reach out to you in the future, please do the same.

barnstar
Well deserved. Lots of ways of leading. Many of us have long regarded you as the best kind of leader, one who constantly makes exemplary and strident edits in the name of quality pagespace, while maintaining an humble and enigmatic presence. Your work is enduring. That's the finest content-related compliment I can offer a Wikipedian. You are a pleasant editor to work around, even when we disagree. That's the highest process-related compliment I can offer a Wikipedian. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the very kind words. But I can't remember any disagreements. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Meetup thread
Well, "COI" can be a pretty harsh word on Wikipedia, and your misconception of "David Shankbone" as a real name probably sounded more like bitter irony. And sometimes people tend to get hotter in conversation than they intend. Online communication can be difficult, and there is a reason why human beings have faces.--Pharos (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves for Hlj
Duly awarded. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)