User talk:Kighva

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=592056000 your edit] to Blood stripe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a Marine Corps publication, available as a pdf download(http://community.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/Marines%20in%20the%20Mexican%

Proposed deletion of Scholaship of Andrew Lambert


The article Scholaship of Andrew Lambert has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:OR, appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Andrew Lambert

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Everymorning  talk  18:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you saw this early comment, when the article was proposed for deletion rather than for a speedy deletion. WP:OR, appears to be a WP:POVFORK of Andrew Lambert. This is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for your views. Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial, the article is simply not encyclopaedic in tone or content and has no place here Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Another analysis of Andrew Lambert's The Challenge: Britain versus America in the Naval War of 1812


A tag has been placed on Another analysis of Andrew Lambert's The Challenge: Britain versus America in the Naval War of 1812 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/history-american-sailing-navy/author/chapelle/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BiH (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lambert's book is not mere presenttion of information but a presentation of his opinions on the War of 1812. His opinions are not backed up by other sources. Why is it Anathema to you that someone presents sources other than AndrewLambert. Why can you not impeach the information I present?

Speedy deletion nomination of Different view on the war of 1812


A tag has been placed on Different view on the war of 1812 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. BiH (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement
We aren't 'afraid' of you or your views. If your views are backed up with reliable independent sources, and you are taking issue with information or sources in War of 1812, you can start a discussion on the talk page there. If you are taking issue with Andrew Lambert (the article), you can start a discussion on the talk page there if you dispute anything in that article. If, however, you are disagreeing with Andrew Lambert the person and/or his works, you are not entitled to create an article putting forward your case. This could come under a variety of heads - any of WP:OR (original research), WP:ATTACK, WP:POINT or WP:POV (point of view). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a debating society or forum, and while we have articles about books (but apparently not the one you don't seem to like, or you could discuss things on the talk page there...), we do not review them in a critical way ourselves. The reviews of established critics may be referred to, and sometimes briefly quoted. And, apart from all this, the first article you posted appears to have been copied from a copyright source. Even if you wrote it there, under WP:COPYVIO it can't be used on Wikipedia because of our licence under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL for free use by anyone anywhere. Copyright text is incompatible with this licensing. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes you Are afraid. I have backed up my views with documentation. I have cited Lambert's books, I have cited other sources, e.g. CS Forester's The Age of Fighting Sail(he is a BRITISH author, Tyrone Martin's A Most Fortunate Ship, Ian Toll's Six Frigates, Jon Latimer's 1812: War with America(he also was a BRITISH Author), Ronald UTT's Ships of Oak, Guns of Iron: The War of 1812 and the Forging of the American Navy, Perilous Fight buy Stephen Budiansky, Theodore Roosevelt's History f the Naval War of 1812, George C. Daughan's If by Sea and Howard I Chapelle's The History of the American Sailing Navy.. Further, I never cited any Copyrighted material without acknowledging the source. I never presented any copyrighted material as my own material. An example of an issue have with Lambert and with your claim that I do not present independent sources:  Lambert did claim in his book that the Royal Navy captured 34 US Navy Warships and lost 6 of their own. I consulted Howard I Chapelle's book, which is a study f how the sailing ships of the US Navy were designed and/or procured, not a battle history. Lambert never gave a list of the 34 ships he claimed were taken. Chapelle gives an extensive list of all the sailing ships which were commissioned in the US Navy. That is why I would rather give no credence to Lambert's claim. He does not back it up. Chapelle's extensive research int the US sailing navy does not back up Lambert's claim. And you say I do not back up my claims. Oh come now.

"A tag has been placed on Different view on the war of 1812 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally,"

That is utter hypocrisy. Wikipedia deleted the page before I could finishing the tagging of my references. My sources for what you did not want to read were Howard I Chapelle's The Historyof the American Sailing Navy, Lambert's book, a nomber of links to Wikipedia articles,List of battles of the War of 1812, wikipedia articles on the Battles of Lake Erie, Lake Champlain,Lake Borgne, wikipedia articles on the frigates USS New York, USS Boston, USS General Greene, an article on HMS Frolic.You are afraid of me, you can not answer the material I present to you, so you censor. You do not have the more courage to face me.
 * I am making no comment whatever on the accuracy of any of the sources, and couldn't give a damn personally about the 1812 war. I am not censoring anything. I am telling you that you are going about this in a way that will not succeed. As I said above, we do not review books. If you think the information in an article is inaccurate, discuss it on the talk page of that article. That is what talk pages are for. Articles are for public reading. Talk pages are for establishing a consensus on the facts - and if there is more than one interpretation of facts, this can be (and should be) incorporated into an article. If you want your point of view to be the only one, so be it. It won't get you anywhere here. If you want to have your views looked at, go to the appropriate talk page and be prepared to discuss. I am facing you - but not on the question of the disputed content. I an facing you to try to get you into the Wikipedia way of working, which has evolved over many years. (I've been here since May 2008, and have been an administrator since 2011.) If you are not prepared to even try the Wikipedia way of consensus working (which seems to work reasonably well as we are still here and have 4.7 million articles on this Wikipedia alone - I think the German one is second, but a long way back), there's not much point my talking any more. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW while you are here, please sign talk page posts with ~ to put your signature and the date stamp on, and you can indent new posts with : (or more of then depending on how far you want to go. Peridon (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kighva on censorship
Hello Kighva,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kighva on censorship for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. SS13 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you want it deleted because you do not like facts I am presenting.

Speedy deletion nomination of More about Lambert to be censored


A tag has been placed on More about Lambert to be censored requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not me, but...
Very soon, someone is going to block you - very probably under WP:NOTHERE, or for trolling or vandalism. Do things the way I suggested and people will listen. They mightn't agree, but they'll discuss (and possibly fight...). I'm not fighting you - I'm trying to help you, in case you are right in your dismissal of a source as incorrect. I'm not getting involved there. Do it your way, and you just look like a troll, even if you didn't have that intention. We can't read minds. You might just be stirring things for fun, or you might be right. The way things are going, we'll never know. I hate unfinished stories (and I've got two that I ought to be working on right now...) Peridon (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"Very soon, someone is going to block you - very probably under WP:NOTHERE, or for trolling or vandalism."

So what.I have not been blocked at Amazon. Why are you people so afraid of someone pointing out the weaknesses in Lambert's book, The History of American Sailing Ships.He also cited one of HowardI Chapelle's books on the development of the Baltimore Clipper. He did not cite The History of the American Sailing Navy. Why? That bok would have given him more information abut the US Navy in the War of 1812 than either of the other two books. Did he not want to learn the information?

regards

kighvaKighva (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is somethingto consider. I say again,I have an issue withLambert's claim that theRoyal Navy took34 warships from the US. Lambert cited Howard I.Chapelle's book
 * Once again, we're not afraid. It's just that posting rants about it is not the way to get anywhere. Any dispute of the accuracy of the information in the article should be on the talk page of the article. Be prepared to show why The History of the American Sailing Navy is more accurate than other sources. We don't know why Lambert cited certain sources and not others, unless there is a reliable independent source that tells us. He is a recognised authority, and is cited here amongst many others. Recognised authorities can be wrong. We would happily allow the addition of another recognised authority that disagreed with him, as we do cover differing viewpoints. Be it right or be it wrong, Wikipedia does not publish original research. This is an encyclopaedia based on recognised sources. A printed encyclopaedia uses authorities as sources. Here, we have to have verifiability WP:V as we don't know who is who in the case of most of the posters. You are providing another source that disagrees with Lambert. Fair enough. Go to the talk page of the 1812 article and say so. Discuss it with the other editors there. People will see your case there. By posting articles attacking Lambert's views, you are only seen by the New Page Patrol and a few admins - and if any of us that have seen them know anything much about the topic, I'll be surprised. We aren't trying to censor you. We're trying to get you to use the right place. It's like you were lobbying at the Parliament of Canada about a problem with the President of Mexico. Give my suggestion a try. It might just work. At the least, you should get a discussion with people who are interested in the subject. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Once again, we're not afraid. It's just that posting rants about it is not the way to get anywhere."

Yes you are afraid. I do not rant. I point out flaws in Andrew Lambert's work and I do document them. Then you people delete them and then give the excuses that I rant and that I do not document. That says very loudly you are afraid of disset.
 * I'm not saying you do not document. You are pointing things out in the wrong place. You haven't found dissent here yet. You've found someone trying to point you in the right direction, someone who knows where the right place is - and you are ignoring my attempted help. I feel like I'm flogging a dead horse here, so I'll leave you to the next admin who comes along. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not saying you do not document. You are pointing things out in the wrong place. You haven't found dissent here yet." Are you saying Wikipedia does not include differing views on the same subject?
 * I told you above that it does. but not the way you are going about it. It's the way you are trying to do this that is not in accordance with our ways of operating. You should use the talk page of the article in question, keep it as brief as possible (see WP:TLDR), be prepared to discuss without being the 'one with the only truth', sign your posts ( ~ ) - and remember the horse I linked to above. As a by the way, I'm not getting involved with the actual content issues here, but I think I noticed (in passing) the date 1949 in connection with the text you seem to prefer, Is it possible that Lambert has used more recent research than that book contains? Just a thought - I do know that history is always changing, and the day before yesterday's outcast (impudent upstart) is yesterday's authority (spot on research), and is outcast again today (outdated). Same in science and my fields of writing and music. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"You should use the talk page of the article in question, keep it as brief as possible (see WP:TLDR), be prepared to discuss without being the 'one with the only truth'"

OK.

But the only one to believe he is the only one with the truth is Andrew Lambert. His account is not the only account of the War,and he states as truth things which are not the truth.

ANDREW LAMBERT

Andrew Lambert may have been awarded a medal by the Society for Nautical Research for "The Challenge: Britain against America in the Naval War of 1812. The accuracy of his scholarship is open to question.

Andrew Lambert claims the Royal Navy captured 34 American Warships in the War of 1812(Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7731-7733). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition.) He gives a reference for that statement: List of Ships taken etc., Treasury to Admiralty, 15 Nov. 1814: ADM 1/4297., Lambert, Andrew (2012-04-03). The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (Kindle Locations 7915-7916). Faber & Faber. Kindle Edition. He does not provide any comprehensive list of names of ships taken.

The following information comes from Howard I Chapelle's the History of the American Sailing Navy, New York, Konecky and Konecky, 1949. This is a history of the design, procurement and ultimate fates of US Sailing Warships. The Page numbers refer to entries on each ship in the index giving how each ship was procured and each ship's ultimate fate.

In 1812, the US Navy consisted of the following Vessels: Constitution(Pg. 536), United States(pg. 556, President(pg. 550), Constellation(pg. 536, Congress(pg. 536), Chesapeake(pg. 535), Essex(pg. 539), Adams(pg. 531), John Adams(pg, 5), Hornet(pg. 543), Wasp(pg. 557), Argus(pg. 533), Syren(pg. 555) Nautilus(pg. 547), Enterprise(pg. 538), Vixen(1st)(pg. 556), Viper(pg. 539 and pg. 556). Frigates New York(pg. 547), Boston(pg. 533) and General Greene(pg. 541) were laid up in the Washington Navy Yard, too rotten to be repairable. All three were burned when Captain Thomas Tingey burned the Washington Navy Yard when the British captured Washington.

During the War of 1812, the US Navy added the following vessels, by capture, purchase or building: Caledonia(pg.534), Alert(pg. 531), Alligator(pg. 531), Guerriere(pg. 542), Java(pg. 544, Independence(pg. 543), Washington(pg. 557), Franklin(pg. 540), Wasp(2nd)(pg. 557), Frolic(pg. 540), Erie(pg. 539), Ontario(pg. 548), Peacock(pg. 548), Epervier(pg. 539), Macedonian(pg. 546), Boxer(pg. 534), Vixen(2nd)(pg. 556), Rattlesnake(pg. 557), Flambeau(pg. 540), Torch(pg. 555), Spitfire(pg. 554), Spark(pg. 554), Cyane(pg. 536), Essex Junior(pg. 536), Louisiana(pg. 545), Caroling(pg. 534), Tom Bowline(pg. 555), Nonsuch(pg. 548) Dispatch(pg. 537), Prometheus (pg. 550), Roanoke (pg. 552).

Of the US Navy vessels present at the start of the War of 1812, the Royal Navy captured President, Chesapeake, Essex, Wasp, Argus, Syren, Nautilus, Vixen(1st) and Viper(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles)

Of the vessels added to the Navy after the outbreak of the War, the Royal Navy captured Frolic, Vixen(2nd), Essex Junior(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles)

The Royal Navy did recapture HMS Frolic and HMS Levant. Neither vessel was ever commissioned in the US Navy. HMS Frolic was so damaged in its battle with the first USS Wasp it was not repairable(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Frolic_(1806)

USS Columbia and USS Argus(2nd) were burned at the Washington Navy yard to prevent capture but were never completed and never commissioned in the US Navy. USS Carolina was destroyed by shore battery fire during the campaign for New Orleans(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Carolina_(1812)) USS Adams was burned in the Penobscot to prevent its capture by the British((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Adams_(1799).

The Royal Navy did capture a number of small vessels on the Great Lakes, USS Ohio, USS Somers, USS Julia, USS Growler, USS Tigress and USS Scorpion(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles)

The Royal Navy did capture USS Eagle and another USS Growler on Lake Champlain. Both vessels were recaptured at the Battle of Lake Champlain(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Eagle_(1812), and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Growler_(1812_sloop).

So, the Royal Navy captured 12 US Navy warships on the high seas during the War of 1812 and 6 small vessels on the Lakes.

The Royal Navy also captured 5 gunboats and 3 tenders on Lake Borgne(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Borgne)

In 1813, the US captured HMS Caledonia and HMS Detroit at Fort Erie Erie(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles). Detroit was destroyed(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Detroit_(1812). Caledonia was taken into the US Navy. Between the Battle of Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, the Royal Navy lost 22 ships to the US Navy((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Erie,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh).

On the High Seas the Royal Navy lost Alert, Guerrierre, Frolic, Macedonian, Java, Peacock, Boxer, Reindeer, Avon, Epervier, Pictou, Cyane, Levant, and Penguin, 14 ships, of which Levant was recaptured and returned to service in the Royal Navy(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_War_of_1812_Battles)

What these figures add up to is the Royal Navy took 27 US Warships on the Lakes, on the High Seas and on Lake Borgne, two of which were recaptured.

The US Navy captured or destroyed 38 British ships on the high seas or on the great Lakes, of which the Royal Navy recaptured 1.

All the vessels captured by the US Navy were taken in Battle except Pictou and Alert. Of the vessels captured by the Royal Navy, only Chesapeake and Argus were taken in battle. The remainder, including President and Essex, were taken by overwhelming force.

These details are not part of Lambert's book, "The Challenge: Britain against America in the Naval War of 1812.

Andrew Lambert cites two books written by Howard I Chapelle, The Baltimore Clipper: Its Origin and Development, Salem, Mass., 1930 and The History of American Sailing Ships, Bonanza Books, New York, 1935, as source material. He does not cite The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development. That book could have provided him with an excellent, comprehensive source of information about the ships of the US Navy in the War of 1812.

Why did Andrew Lambert not consult The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development? Was it because he did not want to know the information? If so, the quality of Andrew Lambert's scholarship is questionable.

Addendum: a poster on a Youtube video posted this list of 34 US warships captured by the Royal Navy: 1.USS Ambush, 2.USS Forehand, 3.USS Destruction, 4.USS Harlequin, 5.USS Eagle, 6.USS Alligator(1813), 7.USS Argus(1803),8.USS Chesapeake(1799), 9.USS Essex(1799), 10.Essex Junior, 11.USS Frolic(1813), 12.USS Julia(1812), 13.USS Nautilus(1799), 14.USS President(1800), 15.USS President(1812), 16.USS Scorpion, 17.USS Somers, 18.USS Syren, 19.USS Viper,20.USS Vixen, 21.USS Wasp, 22.Recapture of HMS Levant by HMS Leander, 23.Recapture of HMS frolic by HMS Policters, 24.USS Vixen(1803), 25.USS Dolphin, 26.USS Arab, 27.USS Lynx, 28.USS Racer, 29.USS Adams, 30.USS rattlesnake, 31.USS Tickler, 32.USS Growler, 33.USS Tigress , 34. USS Joe Barlow. Whether these are the 34 ships Lambert claims were captured by the Royal Navy is unknown. It may become known. Of this list of ships, Dolphin, Arab, Lynx, Racer, Harlequin, and Joel Barlow were all privateers and never commissioned in the US Navy.Levant and Frolic were never commissioned i the US Navy. Frolic was so badl damaged in its engagement with USS Wasp it was not repairable. USS Adams was burned to prevent capture. There were 3 ships in the US Navy named Alligator, none of which were taken by the British. USS Eagle was not taken. the US sailing Navy ever commissioned shpis named Ambush, Forehand or Destruction, according to Howard I. Chapelle, The History of the American Sailing Navy: The Ships and Their Development. Of THIS list, 14 of the names belong to ships which were never commissioned in the US Navy.

kighvaKighva (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)