User talk:SGGH/Archive 2010/November

Re: Gadsby & other lipograms
A belated thanks for placing that notice on the page -- although for editors like me who are still new to the idea of page notices, it might still be a good idea to embed that in the Talk page. I'll end this with an idle question: had the pro-lipogram faction won at Gadsby, do you think they'd try to repeat the same stunt with writing an article on Poe's "X-ing a Paragrab"? Dxing that wxuld make fxr a memxrable, yet fxrmidably hard-tx-read, article, nx? -- llywrch (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably but it would go against obvious and sound policies. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello?
Red Gown squeak at me! (quietly) 15:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Wenonah
One thing you might like to look at before you start reverting my edits (along with everyone else) is that Dwalrus( if you don't know him see the link on my talk page) said on Tirronan's(link on my talk page) talk page that everything I had said on the war of 1812 page was perfectly correct (e.g "However, the United States sought revenge against British slights such as the Chesapeake affair. The United States, with a semi-existent navy, had no way of taking its revenge against Britain directly. Therefore, the Americans thought annexing Canada would easily accomplish this goal as they could bring much force to bear on the North American continent. Having failed to capture Canada during the American Revolutionary War, any annexation of Canada would have to be done militarily.During the negotiations after the American Revolutionary War (the Treaty of Paris)American diplomats attempted to have Canada given to the United States as part of the territory "liberated " by revolutionary forces. British diplomats refused, setting the stage for the War of 1812[1].") is perfectly correct. Rjensen, who deleted this post, should be notified that he deleted properly cited and factual material and that he did wrong to do so.As for what Dwalrus said. He posted ":1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris."Ronald Wenonah (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am astounded by the comment from Wenonah that I said: "that everything I [Wenonah] had said on the war of 1812 page was perfectly correct." That is simply not true. Once I became aware of this nonsense that he is posting I left a message for him on his talk page but he has ignored it. His misleading comments illustrate the difficulty in dealing with him. Dwalrus (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When (not) in Rome...
It looks like User:71.0.213.123 is taking the "Roman" out of "Roman Catholic" as User:71.0.215.177. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's back at it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The message left on their talk page illustrates perfectly how they have no idea how it works here. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations
per the earlier conversation on o fenian. He talks about 1RR (which is all wella nd good) and then expects only his consensus to stay each time. Talk:List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations the same 2 tag-teams adn Talk:List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations where another editor suggests the same.(Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)).

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)