User talk:JimWae/archive1

Police of JFK
Hello, good sir! It seems we are now the police force on the JFK article. It is very interesting that while our favorite person reverts on JFK, that user has not changed any mateiral, added by others, on state funeral which is another article that this user feels that he/she "owns". What is going on in that persons head? I guess we will just have to be teh revert police until Snlyer1 goes away. Best -Husnock 12Feb05

User:SNIyer1
Just to let you know. If you want to start a RfC about SNIyer1's continual addition of melodrama, refusal to discuss issues on the JFK assassination talk page and refusal to respond to comments on SNIyer1's talk page, I will support you. jguk 22:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeh, she's become a nuisance - how does one go about starting an RFC?

She keeps writing in 1st person & also as a supposed omniscient person (her) who can tell what EVERYONE feels. Encyclopedia should not focus on how "people" felt but on facts & events.

She must be very upset about something - not just 9/11 - she has added non-sequitur entries to many funeral sections. --JimWae 20:07, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)


 * Did you guys ever get that RfC started? I'm willing to sign on. Gamaliel 20:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, I saw your comments on SNIyer's talk page. She's doing it to me too. I'm currently rewriting Pan Am Flight 103 to try to improve the writing and expand the content. She makes mostly minor changes (several in a row, without marking them as minor); and the non-minor changes she makes are often factually incorrect, irrelevant, silly, in the wrong place, or non-encyclopedic. For example: "The aftermath of the bombing saw the best of the people of Lockerbie. In the days after the bombing, they pleaded for relatives of the victims to come so that they could get comfort. In the time that has followed, the people in Lockerbie have formed a friendship with relatives of the victims. They also have helped them locate where their loved ones fell when the aircraft exploded. Over the years, they have shown that they will never forget what had happened, but they're keen to look ahead and reclaim their town for the future." Apart from the POV, it's bad English, and the first part is false: the people of Lockerbie did not plead with relatives to come. An effort was made, in fact, to stop relatives travelling to the site. I've left three notes on her talk page, but she doesn't respond. I was half thinking of preparing this article for a featured article nomination, so her additions are becoming a nuisance, because in reverting them, it will look as though there was an edit war, which could affect the nomination. However, I know nothing about her, and so don't know how harshly (or not) to address the issue with her. Can you advise? SlimVirgin 04:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Slim --She never responds on any talk page - neither hers nor the one for an article. I have concluded she is an elderly lady, likely living in eastern Canada and that English is not her first language. I also suspect that she skips her meds some days - but that is another matter. My strategy has been to just revert her & put extensive advice to her in Edit summary. In time, she seems to have learned a bit about what NOT to do, but remains a nuisance. I do not know how to start a RFC on her - and doubt it would be worth the time. I suspect she must at least read her talk page -- but that is frustratingly uncertain & I have had some luck with the edit summaries. In-line comments also help - comment out her entries & add your reasons inside the comment - then at least she can hardly avoid reading them if she tries to edit again - and I think it helps her to REMEMBER the reasons not to write some of what she does.   Hope that helps --JimWae 04:28, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * Oh, sometimes sarcasm helps in in-line comments too. Ask her (how do we know it's a her? - that's an intersting Q for linguistic analysis, no?) if she thinks the meal choices on the flight should also be included in the article --JimWae 04:45, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

LOL, yes. Good idea about the edit summaries and the inline comments: thanks, I hadn't thought of doing that. A little online research may have revealed who she is; I believe, in fact, it's a young boy. If you're interested, I'll e-mail you the details: as they're his/her personal details, I don't want to leave them here. SlimVirgin 05:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

nice touch ...
... and i hope, the final touch, on resolving the eisenhower funeral thing. i got briefly into that "give and take" last month, and didn't realize there was more to it than met the eye.Sfahey 03:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re: Ike
This article is/has been v.good for a long time. Unfortunately, were it put forth as FAC, the insidious trench warfare would likely go nuclear. Too bad. Sfahey 16:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SNIyer1
Jim, I've blocked IP 68.196.96.197 for 24 hours for vandalism. As you know, it's SNIyer1. I warned him that I would block him if he continued inserting the schmalz, but it made no difference. I'm having to follow all his edits, deleting the inappropriate ones, and I saw today that you're doing it too, so enough. He's also editing under 68.107.105.71 and 68.95.106.101, and there may be others. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * And as 68.92.125.8, he's been creating puff pieces about non-notable relatives of famous people. I suspect he gets all this stuff from women's magazines and similar. Hence the schmaltzy tone to much of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:SNIyer1
I see this person is back to their old habits over at the JFK article. Enough is enough. I think it is time for an RFC on this user. Given teh user's habits of ignoring all rules of Wikipedia, never answering messages on talk pages, it should be a pretty simple matter to expose the person for what they are. Please join in supporting the RFC, once it is created. -Husnock 05:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * RFC is open. Please see: Requests for comment/SNIyer1 -Husnock 06:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dieter Manisprechensie
Don't you mean rather than  for this piece of crap hoax article from the feces-obsessed Eyeon? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Is there a list somewherre of the most common things to put inside ?--JimWae 18:04, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

RFC on DotSix
I have filed a request for comment on DotSix's conduct. It is available at Requests for comment/DotSix. Since you are involved in this dispute, you may want to certify the RFC or add your own comments. Thanks. Rhobite 01:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Injoined User
The user user:Adrigo who has been editing articles related to theism, atheism, and agnosticism, is Donald Alford (AKA DotSix) who has been injoined by the Arb Committee from editing any page except the evidence page for his Arb Hearing and his own user pages. Please revert EVERY edit he makes to any other page, including talk pages, with a simple comment that he is injoined. Please do not argue with him. Doing so just feeds a troll. Thank you. --Nate Ladd 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

American Civil Rights Movement
Please vote for the American Civil Rights Movement in the nominations for the Article Improvement Drive. [Click here and scroll down to (Nominated in August or later: American Civil Rights Movement... to cast your vote]. Thanks! Mamawrites 04:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Jim, Please support my request for adminship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Next issue
(Wouldn't it be nice if people learned how to use the "+" tab on talk pages? &mdash; DLJessup 19:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Tiffany
It's a bit mysterious to me. I have several references (including Encyclopedia Britannica) that say the mansion was in Oyster Bay. Personally I don't quite know. If you are sure it is in Cold Spring Harbor, could you add a reference there? Many thanks.

I did: http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/Tiffany/listlau.htm Oyster Bay used to include lots more terrttory than it does now - anything near the water & near Oyster Bay - ferry & all that I guess -- also http://www.morsemuseum.org/laurelton.html and http://members.aol.com/obhistory/freejas.htm

It might actually be in Laurel Hollow, New York a village (in the Town of Oyster Bay) that likely was once part of the hamlet of Oyster Bay - and next to CSH (which is in Suffolk County) http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-historytown-hist002y,0,7507282.story --JimWae 00:13, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Litre symbol
I'm a newcomer to this myself, but since both l and L are accepted symbols according to the CGPM, I don't think you should be making wholesale changes in that just for the sake of change. Leave them as you find them. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kilogram
What exactly did you mean as "base unit". I'm just confused by this term, as it sounds kind of arbitrary. (why isn't kilometer a base unit?)--ZayZayEM 03:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A base unit is the unit in terms of which the other units are derived. Traditionally it had no prefix. Kilogram is exceptional in that it has a prefix. See SI base unit --JimWae 04:11, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Decay chains
We meet again. Some while ago, you created at Half-life a table listing three decay chains. I then dragged it all the way over to Radioactive decay, and there finally confronted it and become very confused about its significance. Please see talk:Decay chain, where I'm presently seeking enlightenment on this question. --Smack 19:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) --JimWae 23:16, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
 * I created the other (generic) table:  % remaining after so many half-life terms


 * Ah. I see my mistake.  The table of decay chains was added two years ago by an anonymous user.  Just my luck.  Well then, I'm off to the Reference Desk. --Smack 20:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Half-life
Hi, I see that I haven't been able to convince you to my reasoning about the table that you recently re-inserted into that article. Could you explain to me why you disagree with my preferred device of guiding the reader to the Exponential decay article? Please reply at Talk:Half-life. --Smack (talk) 03:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gun Politics
I have a serious problem with your POV vandalizing of others work that contradicts your political agenda. Everything I post is factually correct. Mlorrey 03:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "They are forgetting..." does not belong in an encyclopedia. If you cannot find an alternative way of presenting a point, then perhaps I will - when I get to it. But that will be hard since your point is so easily countered. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog --JimWae 04:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Right to WMDs?

 * Most people on both sides agree that so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (i.e., biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) cannot have any legitimate purpose in the hands of individuals and that even in non-hostile hands these weapons pose a serious threat due to the risk of even simple accidents during storage or transport. As such, most agree that even the broad protections of the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms do not apply to "WMD's".


 * However, a few on the gun-rights side (notably Vin Suprynowicz) point out that all American government powers originate with the people. Therefore, they argue, if the American government has the power to own WMDs, the people must have the same power or else they wouldn't have been able to give it to the government. Opponents of this view contend it commits the logical fallacy of division, giving as a counterexample powers of the State to tax, to imprison, and even to execute, which no government empowers to individuals.


 * Some contend this counterexample is nullified by the fact that armed private citizens can use deadly force "in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state" (NH State Const. Part I, Article IIa) and it is from this self defense/state defense function that the state itself derives its power to execute convicted criminals and engage in warfare. Gun-rights proponents say it is not a fallacy of division, but a matter of partial delegation, just as citizens delegate some powers to their State government, and the same and/or others to the Federal government (like the authority to oversee elections, to tax, to regulate commerce, ban some drugs but not others, etc)

<! I'd agree the gov't derives these powers from an individual right to self-defense delegated to the gov't, but which part of ANY of these is partially RETAINED by individuals? If none is retained, what is the point of mentioning "partial" delegation? > User:JimWae

Those who maintain that Suprynowicz's argument still commits the fallacy of division, argue that the delegation of powers (in the case of nuclear weapons) is not partial but complete, just as, though individuals are permitted to detain or even kill others when the need for defense is imminent, no state allows that any single individual retains any "right" to execute nor to imprison others -- that only the state may execute or imprison (or delegate the carrying out of such to its lawful agents). The argument continues that similarly, it is not the case that all individuals have a right to keep nuclear weapons. -- User:JimWae


 * However they are forgetting that most states in the US empower the average citizen to effect citizens arrest for felonies and in some cases obligate them to do so. Citizens can also use deadly force to defend others, or their property, or the state (as cited above), not just in cases of imminent danger to themselves alone. Furthermore, in few courts in the nation is a judge allowed to impose the death penalty, only a jury of one's peers can do so in most cases, ergo the power to execute remains in the hands of the average citizen doing their jury duty. -- Somebody Else

"They are forgetting" is POV no matter what follows & does not belong in an encyclopedia. Your own example (jury) points not to an individual right, but to a collective power. Btw, I enjoy shooting - but do not think the right is the only one of all that is "unlimited", and thus do not think every Joe Schmoe is entitled to his own nuclear weapon - as you & Suprynowicz's would seem to be arguing. -- User:JimWae

Jim, i have to agree with you. Hippie be dammed. --Cuimalo 03:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source for Election of 1912
Hi there:

Right now, we have a person (User:Toya) who has been going through the various U.S. presidential election, yyyy articles and replacing their PV data with PV data from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is all fine — I have little reason to suspect that Leip's data isn't good — but I've been cleaning up after Toya, fixing formatting, citing his source, little housekeeping like that.

However, I'm now up to 1912, and the Leip PV values from the main results table don't agree with the totals in the state-by-state table that you entered. I'm somewhat curious as to where you got your data for that table — is it a better source than the Leip Atlas? I'm also curious as to whether you think I should use the Leip values for the state-by-state table, or use your source for the main results table.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

— DLJessup 14:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi DL,
 * The source I used is the one in External Links: http://www.multied.com/elections/1912State.html
 * The first discrepancy I see is Colorado
 * --JimWae 15:31, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

If you don't mind, I think I'm going to go ahead and use the Leip values for the state-by-state table. Leip seems a bit more professional than MultiEducator: Leip cites references for his sources such as:  "Arizona Secretary of State, General Election Returns November 5th, 1912 State of Arizona (Phoenix, 1912)" while MultiEducator manages to (mis)spell Woodrow Wilson's name with two l's on http://www.multied.com/elections/1912State.html.

— DLJessup 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are all the discrepancies--JimWae 03:02, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
 * {| style="text-align:right"


 * Arizona||0||0||35||0||35
 * California||0||0||67||0||67
 * Colorado||320||554||0||52||926
 * Delaware||0||0||1||0||1
 * Iowa||3||0||0||0||3
 * Michigan||550||1,341||810||151||2,852
 * Montana||-188||-253||-63||74||-430
 * New Jersey||-349||-269||-231||0||-849
 * New Mexico||0||0||569||0||569
 * North Dakota||6||0||100||0||106
 * Ohio||0||0||0||-20||-20
 * Oklahoma||13||0||60||44||117
 * South Carolina||2||0||0||0||2
 * South Dakota||0||0||0||-2||-2
 * Texas||2,668||2,138||-1,555||859||4,110
 * Utah||3||0||87||24||114
 * Vermont||4||3||29||0||36
 * Total||3,032||3,514||-91||1,182||7,637
 * }
 * Ohio||0||0||0||-20||-20
 * Oklahoma||13||0||60||44||117
 * South Carolina||2||0||0||0||2
 * South Dakota||0||0||0||-2||-2
 * Texas||2,668||2,138||-1,555||859||4,110
 * Utah||3||0||87||24||114
 * Vermont||4||3||29||0||36
 * Total||3,032||3,514||-91||1,182||7,637
 * }
 * Texas||2,668||2,138||-1,555||859||4,110
 * Utah||3||0||87||24||114
 * Vermont||4||3||29||0||36
 * Total||3,032||3,514||-91||1,182||7,637
 * }
 * Total||3,032||3,514||-91||1,182||7,637
 * }
 * }

Thanks a lot — the discrepancy list really helped. I've finished making the changes to the 1912 election tables. Let me know if I screwed anything up.

— DLJessup 14:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election pages
Hi:

Thank you for adding the popular vote percentages to the election results boxes in 1852, 1856, and 1860! Also, as you know, I've incorporated your PV and EV totals into Template:end U.S. presidential ticket, and I wanted to thank you for the inspiration. &mdash; DLJessup 19:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Lots of synchronicity, wasn't it? Did you even see my Question about how to do it? - cause I did not --JimWae 19:26, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)


 * Ah, I finally think I understand your comment. You added the data for the PV %ages, but they weren't visible until I made the necessary changes to the template.  Unfortunately, you have to add the parameters to the pages before you add them to the template, or the articles look rather ugly during the transition.  Is this an appropriate response, or am I totally misinterpreting your comment? &mdash; DLJessup 05:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I made an edit that only included an extra carriage return with comment in edit field asking how to get % in tables - but it did not save - not being "differrent" from previous entry. Meanwhile, you were adding the placeholders - then as you did that I added the %#s. Anyway the tables are much more informative now -- thanks--JimWae 08:01, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

thx
Thanks for further cleaning up my clarity clean up in the Terrorism article. zen master   T  00:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an article that needs lots of work still, but I will be there from time to time again. --JimWae 00:47, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

New York City
Hi, we had the same idea about the opening para. I'll back off a bit and see what you end up with. Kaisershatner 21:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US population
List of countries by population references http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbrank.pl No mention is made on that page about month the estimate is for - and even though a year appears, its meaning is not totally clear. Note also the date of the estimate. How more reliable can one be than the source I gave & sourced? http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

Why keep unsourced data that seems to have been superseded?
 * particularly when it is for some future date - which technically is a projection rather than an estimate

AND -- a population clock is more interesting, no?

Do a search for 295,734,134 US -- mostly all you'll get are mirror sites of wikipedia --JimWae 05:20, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

-HEY Cantus, don't you think it would be appropriate to give reasons for re-reverting this - those figures are based on old data --JimWae 05:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

LOOK HERE http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbprint.html --JimWae 06:01, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

I've already told you that if you want to change the data for the US population, go to the reference article, and edit it there, and then edit the US article. -Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   06:14, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to edit that whole table just so I can put an accurate & current estimate in the US article - and I am not going to calculate the new US July 2005 figure myself. You are not working with me! The figure I inserted is fully sourced --JimWae 06:17, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

You seem to want consistency -- even if the hobgoblined data is outdated. My version is an estimate instead of a projection, more accurate, and (referencing the population clock) more interesting --JimWae 06:25, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

By rereverting a 3rd time w/o ever addressing any of my numerous points and by insisting on a foolish consistency, I see --JimWae 21:08, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
 * you are determined to prove that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
 * you are not a reasonable person
 * you do not want to risk not getting your own way
 * it is pointless to try to reason with you

James Madison
Hey, thanks for catching my mistake on James Madison. I cant believe I didnt notice that. --Bonus Onus 00:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

wiki:USA
Thanks for your input Jim. --Cuimalo 03:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Preemptive war biased? How about Preventive war?

Crawdaddy
Not sure why you left the 1970s run of Crawdaddt out of your entry, but Paul Williams apparently views it as the same magazine he started -- see, for example, this interview

http://www.rockcritics.com/interview/paulwilliams.html

particularly the last Q.&A. So I've added a short description of that run. Monicasdude 21:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An apology
I don't know if you saw it, I don't know if you cared, but I'm still going to apologize for my snide comment in the most recent United States diff. (I'd give a direct link except it would be obsoleted by the next time an edit is made). --Golbez 02:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

JFK Trivia
I removed the JFK trivia section a week or so ago as the article is currently undergoign peer review and the point was made that FAs never have trivia sections. I am hoping to guide the Kennedy article to FA status, and would be grateful if you want to help me improve the article to get that far, and am reverting the trivia section. If you have any further points to add on this, please start a discussion on the JFK talk page (the article is on my watchlist) and we'll talk further. Thanks. Harro5 05:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll let you work on it for a while without the trivia section. It's about the only place to put some things (like Huxley & Lewis) without going off-topic, in my opinion, though - and even Tecumseh's curse is of interest to many who do not believe in curses. I did a lot of work on several JFK articles, but have never tried to put anything up for FA status - I suspect I'd find having to avoid capricious criticisms too straight-jacketing. Good luck --JimWae 05:44, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

Sayville
You seem to be on the same page with me in what's starting to develop into an edit war concerning several facts about Sayville. The first is Marlon Brando's time there during the 1940s. The second is how the town got its name. I'm not very proficient about Wiki editing -- recently created a username and am sort of learning as I go along -- but I do know what's fact and what's not, especially where the name is concerned (see the Sayville talk page for the "Final Word on Name" facts).

The problem is that there is someone out there on the web who, a couple of years ago, started (this sensationalistic site) and is on some sort of mission to flood any online reference related to Sayville with what are a lot of half-truths. I'm sure you've seen it and the logical leaps this person takes are flat-out staggering. I could go into a long story about how I came to know about this because it involves me and several of my friends personally, but I don't want to take up too much room. Anyway, this person keeps using anonymous numbered IP addresses to post changes, so it's not like he can be disciplined in any way. And I'm pretty sure it's the same person that's making all these changes.

So, I'm just asking you for any advice, because while I would like to see the facts presented as they should be, I don't want to get involved in a juvenile edit war, and I know you're as involved in keeping the page up to date as I am.

Thanks for listening. Tpanarese 03:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"expelled from an acting company, of the New School, in Sayville."
 * COMPROMISE ON BRANDO: I added this to the Sayville page:

The way I wrote this sentence, it could mean either it is the school or just the company.

Also notice that Panarese says "Half-Truths" and not "Lies." Either something is true or not true. What is a "Half-Truth" anyway? Facts are facts, and Brando was a student in Sayville, where he was in a New school summer program, students paid tuition, taught by a New school teacher, and given graded assignments. Is it a "Logical Leap" that Brando was a student in Sayville, then got thrown out? Do not equate an acting school with a High School, as some have.

Benedict Arnold (and his brother)
Noticed that you edited out the mention of Arnold's brother, who died in infancy. It's nothing I'm going to squabble over, of course; it is faily minor in the scheme of things. I would like to posit an argument for its inclusion, though, as it tells us about the period into which he was born: infant mortality was high and it was common to name a new child after its dead predecessor. I'm not going to revert it or put the information back in; just thought I'd offer my two cents on why I think it's an important detail. --Anonymoustom 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

- all but one of his siblings died before adulthood, his mother was widowed & then married his father --JimWae 16:56, 2005 July 15 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold edit
Hi, xtrump here. I'd like your comment (yea or nay) on my attempt to clean up the Benedict Arnold article. The existing doc is so long, has so many anectdotes of the man, is written more in "novel style" rather than encyclopidia style (just the facts ma'am) I feel much of it should be cut and leave references where available online. Appreciate your input. Xtrump 03:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is way too long - keep at it. There's a history of removing "traitor" from lead though --JimWae 03:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that. Doesn't give me a problem although I think its a POV whether he was "the most notorius traitor" (Klaus Fuchs, Alger Hiss, Jeff Davis are just a few names that might qualify for that dubious honor) and the fact that he was a traitor is emphasized in the last para of the lead, so somewhat redundant. But I'm not going to nit pick over it. Someone wants it in it can stay as far as I'm concerned.

OK will continue, although pains me somewhat to undo so much of someone elses hard work, (and it is hard - by the time you check all the refs etc. it takes a lot of research).Xtrump 17:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There's very little on the actual West Point plot - and it was hard to even find in the article. I put some more subheadings in for a start--JimWae 17:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * like the use of the link to the Battle of Valcour Island - but the American withdrawal/retreat from Canada got lost. Also find it somewhat ironic that Arnold had become something of an American hero for his role in preventing the Canadian & NYC forces from linking via the Hudson & thus splitting the colonies - and then that was exactly what he attempted in his plot --JimWae 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right, it did get lost. I'll put it back in. There are other anectdotes deleted as well, some of them need to go back in to try and explain his later actions. Still lots of editing to do but trying to get through a first pass for now and will go back over it again to clarifiy any ambiguities. As for the irony? This man was a very complex personality. Don't think he was capable of accepting criticism -- it would throw him into a fit of rage every time. (Witness his duel in the Honduras). And he well knew the importance of the Hudson river to both sides in the conflict. Basically, whoever controlled it won the war. Xtrump 10:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)