User talk:Brian0918/Archive 01

Welcome!

Hello Brian, and welcome to Wikipedia. Re: the encyc. Frobozzia : more Zork information is a good thing! But it should be in the form of neat, structured encyclopedia articles, not random links to original sources. It will be excellent to have the original in Wikisource, and to have articles about Encyclopedia Frobozzia, the Zork Universe, etc.

That is, if someone searches for "Belwit" or "Belwit Flathead", they would automatically be redirected to the actual entry about Belwit Flathead in the Wikisource EF article

Redirection to original content is not our goal. When someone searches for these terms, they should not find a stub-article, or an original-source article (Wikipedia is not the place for original content), but a contextualized discussion of, say, Belwit Flathead. That would not be in an article devoted solely to B.F., but in a broader article with enough depth to mature into a good read, and with internal links to other Zork and EF content.

Cheers, (and looking forward to a wikisource update) +sj+ 20:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wow! This comment was published for a long time! 70.70.22.133 (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your restore on Creationism

The measure of a man is what he will do for his adversaries. --Gary D 21:56, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mouse bat follicle et al.

Yes, as a matter of fact. I understand you want us to help you sell your washing powder... -- Wapcaplet 23:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Acoma Pueblo

Yeah, I noticed Acoma was pointing to the wrong place too, but forgot to change it. I'm curious - were most pages which referred to Acoma referring to the Pueblo itself, or were nearby villages included in the link context? I ask because according to what I have read, about 50 people live in the Pueblo proper, but nearly 3000 people live on the federal trust land surrounding the pueblo. I'm considering creating the article for Acoma Pueblo, but if you feel strongly and would like to, I found quite good information from Encyclopedia Britannica (subscription only), New Mexico Magazine (www.nmmagazine.com/NMGUIDE/acoma.html), and the US Census Bureau (here). -ABQCat 21:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the problem because I was going to put a satellite photo of the mesa on the Acoma Pueblo page (which doesn't exist). It looked most or all of the links were talking about the pueblo, not about the surrounding land (and definitely not about the city in MN. You can start a page if you want to, I'm not particularly good at encyclopedic writing. If you do create a page, add this template in for some cool picture links: --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 22:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

34.89641°N 107.58158°W / 34.89641; -107.58158

I created the article - feel free to look through it and change anything you like. --ABQCat 22:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terrific find on the Ansel Adams picture of Acoma Pueblo. I had seen some similar pictures, but none included copyright information, so I went with the dusty and old 1899 variety. When (eventually) I get some time, I'm going to work at bringing in a bit of information from a few of those sites I listed on the talk page - but for now it's final exam studying time. --ABQCat 20:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I listed a "few" more sources on the talk page, books and sites. I also just got done turning in my last final for the semester. Now I get to spend my break filling out grad school applications and working on my senior project. :( [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 22:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is but ONE

I will CRUSH all imposters.

(err... yes it is me) --ZayZayEM 02:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Btrieve

Have attempted to fix the introduction. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing the copyedit! I've also done a much better lead section which I think is more focused on Btrieve itself. I now only have to add information about Btrieve for NT as well as Btrieve for Pervasive.SQL 7 & Pervasive.SQL 8. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You

Is your name Brian Pohanko? — Nathanlarson32767 | (Talk) 01:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Probably not. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 01:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

American Civil War

I notice you've added a lot of categories under Category:Battles of the American Civil War. Most of them are empty. Do you plan to write all the articles implied by this structure in the near future? Gdr 01:48, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I've been following the structure laid out by Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles, and recategorizing the articles accordingly. This will take some time. As for battle articles that haven't been created yet, I may get to them some time, but I was planning on simply completing the entire American Civil War battle structure for future ease. --brian0918™ 01:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood one of the recommendations in Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles. The name "Battles of the X Campaign of the Y War" is preferred over "Y War Battles of the X Campaign", but World War II and Vietnam are exceptions to this that no-one has yet had the enthusiasm to change. But that's not a big deal, we can live with a bit of inconsistency. My main concern is that these categories will sit empty for a long time and just make it hard for people to find the article they want when browsing the categories. Surely, the time to make a Category:American Civil War cavalry operations along the Rappahannock is when you have three or four articles about such operations and the parent category is looking crowded. I think it will be many years before we have that kind of level of detail, if ever.

You might want to look at, say, Category:Battles of World War I. Logically speaking we might eventually need a Category:Battles of the Gorlice-Tarnow campaign of World War I ... but since we don't even have an article on the Second Battle of the Masurian Lakes it would seem a bit premature to make such a category. People have made sub-categories as needed, and I think that makes the WWI battle categories easier to browse than the American Civil War battle categories. Gdr 02:10, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I didn't know that WWII and Vietnam were exceptions. I was going simply by the examples they gave in the WikiProject, which seemed fine. I do think that the categories are necessary, even if they remain blank. Not only do they encourage people to add to wikipedia, but they also allow one to understand the timeframe of the battle/campaign as well as other events in the war. Also, by creating all of the categories now, I am encouraging people in the future to put them in the proper category, instead of a generic list of battles category. --brian0918™ 02:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion for the kind of debate that goes on about categories. In particular, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#War equipment categories for a proposal to delete an elaborate scheme of categories that was never populated. Don't be surprised if someone proposes to delete your categories on the grounds that they don't have any articles in them. However, I wish you good luck with your work on the Civil War articles. Drop me a line when Category:American Civil War cavalry operations along the Rappahannock has three or four articles in it; I will be interested to read them. Gdr 12:13, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wrote the paragraph above without checking to see what you did. Please accept my apologies. Gdr 15:06, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Virginia map 1858-59

Sure, and congrats on the Battle of Hampton Roads featured article! It is my second, and with several failure, I can attest that it is not easy to accomplish. The map came from the library of Virginia website. They have 4 old state-sponsored maps of the entire state (on-line), one done around 1827?, and then a revision put out in 1858-59. The on-line version has ability to zoom sections, etc. You can get a lot more detail if desired. I used the later, multi part version, and zoomed in to get the Hampton Roads area as it was presented just before the Civil War. I have read both dates in various places (1858-59).

Here is the link: http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/cgi-sid/local_image.cgi?ox=0&oy=0&filename=/BPW/maps/712-4.sid&referer=http://lvaimage.lib.va.us/BPW/indexes/711-712.html&title=++STATE+MAPS+OF+VIRGINIA.+1827,1859.+&res=3&size=12&part=1&fullwidth=4602&fullheight=2981&parts=0

In case that long link doesn't work, go to Library of Virginia, the maps you want are in the Board of Public Works Collection, under County and sate Maps, near the end. http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whatwehave/gov/bpw.htm

I am also interested in other Virginia Civil War activities, and have a good book on the Peninsula Campaign (To the Gates of Richmond, by Stephen W. Sears.

I prefer to work on content items, so let's stay in touch and maybe we can collaborate? Let me know how the Library of Virginia things goes, I'll be glad to help if needed.

Again, congratulations on the Battle of Hampton Roads. Vaoverland 05:53, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you got the wrong guy.. I wrote the Brandy Station Foundation article, not the Battle of Hampton Roads one.. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 05:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the box at the top of User talk:Brian0918 needs to be corrected. Vaoverland 06:05, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC) Brian0918

Oops.. hehe. I copied the box template from his talk page, but never changed the name to mine... --brian0918™ 06:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

revised map

Your map does a much better job than the one I found. I just updated the article on George B. McClellan. Vaoverland 07:16, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Civil war

Hi. I uploaded a lot of maps about the civil war to Commons:Category:American Civil War maps. Please check if there are any you could use -- Chris 73 Talk 01:19, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Civil War

It looks as the two of us share a common interest in civil war battles. I am in the process of writing new articles on various civil war battles and adding content to existing articles. Judging by the amount of red links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_American_Civil_War there is a lot of work to be done. If you need any help along the way I would be more the willing to help out. 578 17:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had much of an interest in the civil war until recently. It started with editing the Battle of Hampton Roads article (which recently became a Feature Article), and I noticed that the campaignboxes for the civil war were nonexistent... so, after some work, I made all of Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles/Campaignboxes#American Civil War those, and moved on to putting battleboxes on all the existing battle page, along with public domain pictures when available. Right now, I'm working on a US map showing which counties were involved in the civil war, color coded for the theater and year of battle. This could... take some time... hehe...

As for creating new articles, I highly recommend this site (http://www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm). Let me know what new battle articles you create, and I can add battleboxes, find public domain photos, and properly Category:Battles of the American Civil War categorize them for you. Because that site is public domain, you could, if you wanted to, just copy and paste the content from the site, with some proper rewording. --brian0918™ 17:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that site is a great site i have already used it for a couple of articles. But bassicly what im doing is just going down the Battles of the America Civil War page and creating new articles as i come across them. Today so far i have finished the Battle box for Battle of Decatur and i am working on the nartive....about your map its a great idea, and yes its going to take quite along time. heh 578 18:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the links...Ok i will look there now for maps on the battle of Fort Blakely.

New Battle pages

Battle of Decatur has been completed. Will add a map later today. 578 18:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Athens has been completed. 578 19:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Blakely Battlebox has been completed, I am working on the narative which might take some time. bakuzjw (aka 578) 20:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battle Map

It looks great a job well done. Just a thought (and i know this would take a long time) but it would be neat if you could click on one of the counties with in the map that would then take you to a list of all the battles that took place in that county. Just a thought. But the map looks great a job well well done. mad props. ps. if this message makes no sense sorry i will rephrase it later i just got back from a LAN party and im my mine is not yet in full gear i just wanted to make sure i didn’t forget about it. 578 18:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dont really know to tell you the truth. im trying to think of someone that might but nothing is coming to my mind. I will ask Neutrality and if he does not know the answer maybe he will be able to point us to someone that might know the answer 578 19:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See [1]. Gdr 00:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I went to that link and im not quite sure what where supposed to do. Will someone make the image map for the map or dose one of us have to make the image map and then upload the HTML code to someplace on wikipedia (i do know how to program in HTML if it is needed.) 578 02:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to tell us is that Wikipedia doesn't support image maps... yet. If Wikipedia handled images like a normal website, it would be easy, but they don't. --brian0918™ 02:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok got it now. Would have been a lot of work but it would have been well worth it, if they ever support image maps it would be a neat thing to try and do though. 578 03:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In reagards to the message you last left....Ok my bad will take that into account in the future. Just to give you a heads up i am currenlty working on Battle of Fort Blakely which might be the my first civil war battle to include a troop movements map. 578 02:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that picture That was the same one tht i was going to ask for you get get. 578 16:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Nice work on the Civil War battles. Don't forget to put a sort key in the category line: you can see at Category:Battles of the Peninsula Campaign of the American Civil War that they are almost all filed under "B" at the moment! Gdr 00:34, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Oops.. I got a little ahead of myself with the copying and pasting. Thanks. --brian0918™ 01:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Blakely Question

The Battle of Fort Blakely officaly took place over 8 days (april 2-9) however the main attack, and only real attack, on Fort Blakely was on April 9. The total amount of Casualties listed is 4,475 but [this site] inculdes the casualties resulting from the main attack on April 9. In the battle box i only put these cassulites(the ones from april 9, mainly becuase that was the only real attack). But my question is, is there any way that it could be possible to list the total Casualties number (4,475) with in the battle box. bakuzjw (aka 578) 20:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) This entry was edited to fix spelling and the link bakuzjw (aka 578) 20:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Williamsport

The text at Battle of Williamsport is a copy of [2]. Do you have permission to use it in wikipedia under the GFDL? If you use a text with permission it is a good idea to reference the source on the talk page or in the edit summery. Thue | talk 23:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the text from the article was copied from the original source, this page created by the National Park Service. It should be public domain. I also linked the reference on the article page, under References. --brian0918™ 23:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is public domain as you say is probable:[3], and you did link to it under references, so all is good. But I will still maintain that you should have written somewhere that the text was a copy; listing the source as a reference is not the same thing. Thue | talk 23:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been listing such articles in the talk page for Battles of the American Civil War, stating that they were copied. --brian0918™ 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO it would be nice to have a quick notice on the individual talk pages or in their page histories. It is not obvious that one has to look for source information at Battles of the American Civil War. Thue | talk 00:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From now on I'll use Source in place of References in the article. --brian0918™ 00:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg map

That's a pretty lame map of the battle. I understand that you needed one freely available. I have been considering using my map in Gettysburg Battlefield to show each day of the battle separately, so don't be surprised if that change occurs.

BTW, in all these tables you've been adding, why do you omit the state name from the location?

big_hal 15:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Armenian Genocide

Thanks, Brian, for your message back from a month ago... I learned only today how to communicate with others at Wikipedia, and I don't check in all that often. You had asked me to "fix your statements" ... but I didn't write those statements. I actually have done very little on that page, as there are many "crazies" on this topic, and I didn't feel it fair to go in and perform the revamp the page needs. (Some pro-genocide zealots have done exactly that, feeling free to make extensive changes.) This is why there have been conflicting statements throughout.

I believe someone has made a change already, putting in "between 1.3 and 1.7 million Armenians." In actuality, the range by most "neutral" observers fell between 1 million and 1.5 million. I believe there were 1.5 million, myself.

Thanks for your concern; I can see from this page you are involved in matters of history, and my appreciation goes to those who give priority to the truth, instead of their passions... the same way I'm sure you are as appreciative.

BHR on the main page

I don't know if you knew it was pending, but I am sure you know by now that our Battle of Hampton Roads article is featured on the main page today. I have been working during the past week to get articles started to cover the red links. Coincidentally, last week, on the way to visit a friend at MCV Hospital here in Richmond, I was walking past the Museum of the Confederacy, and paused to brush some of the snow off the anchor of the C.S.S. Virginia which is prominently displayed on the front lawn. I have been enjoying your work on the Peninsula Campaign, etc. You also may enjoy reading the article I started about Otelia B. Mahone, wife of William Mahone. Thanks, (and congrats!). Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 01:36, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Peninsula Campaign

I noticed that the article on the Peninsula Campaign doesn't have a battlebox or any good links to all the articles on the various Battles. Thoughts (or action)? Vaoverland 22:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Python

I can't be arsed re-working it mate. I've heard people like Innes, Cleavland, Booth and Barry Took referred to as the 7th Python at some stage. I think the Pythons themselves named Took, but if you want to re-work it, I won't object and Cleavland probably is most significant.--Crestville 17:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abandoned Civil War categories

The large number of empty, orphaned Civil War categories you created a little while back have come up on Categories for Deletion, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Empty Civil War cats. If you've abandoned these, as the edit summaries in the random sampling I looked at seem to indicate, please pop over there and mention it so they can be cleared away without concern that they were set up for someone to use them in the near future. Bryan 19:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perforate vs Perforated

What's with the mass editing to remove usage of "perforated"? I'm assuming this is a British vs American usage difference.

In any case, using "perforated" as an adjective is perfectly acceptable according to numerous dictionaries, and these sorts of edits aren't generally welcome, and are usually pedantry. Please see Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Keep_in_mind)#U.S._English_vs._British_English, for example. -- Kaszeta 16:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You asked which dictionary I used, claiming that dictionary.com list perforate as the only adjective. I hereby present [4], which defines "perforated" as "adj. Having been perforated."

Please, accept "perforated" as common, defined usage and leave it be. Thanks. -- Kaszeta 17:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Princeton's Wordnet also lists "perforated" and cites as an example "a perforated balloon." Likewise, as a common usage example, Google finds 765 hits for "a perforate [x]" and 155,000 hits for "a perforated [x]," implying that the web prefers "perforated" as an adjective 200 to 1. It may be a British vs American usage difference, as Kaszeta suggests above, but articles written in US English, such as Espresso, should remain consistant throughout the article. Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 17:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note http://www.m-w.com/ agrees that perforate is a verb. You made these changes a bit mechanically... at Postage Stamp the word "perforated" was used as a verb, not as an adjective, so your modification couldn't possibly have been correct. -- Curps 19:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition, page 1345.

As you can see from the above, in U. S. usage "perforated" is a perfectly good adjective. Your statement that "perforate is the correct adjective, never perforated" is just plain incorrect. Furthermore, in the U. S. the adjective perforated is so much more common than the adjective perforate that to use the latter invites puzzlement and misunderstanding. The adjective perforate is used, but only in limited scientific, medical, and technical contexts. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Before going off and making this kind of wholesale change you should have discussed this somewhere, reached consensus, and included a link to the discussion in your edit comments. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P. P. S. It's puzzling to me that under the entry perforate, AHD3 indicates perforate (and only perforate) as the -adj form, and then lists the adjective perforated as a separate entry, without comment or discussion. I wonder whether by any chance you could have consulted a dictionary that did the same thing? Still, I don't see how the definition for "perforated" could possibly be clearer. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jubal Early

I reviewed your edits. Interesting photo!

I don't know that it's worth complaining about or fixing, but your thorough capitalization of military ranks does not conform to regular English usage or [5]. You can say "Major General Early," but "Early was promoted to major general."

And what is the point of Wikifying month names such as December?

big_hal 17:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Military history of the Soviet Union is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute to it to help make it a feature article. --AndyL

Mahone

Thanks for fixing the page. I will do a little digging about the missing T. Some of my N&W rail friends may have something on it. I am also working on Otelia B. Mahone (wife), etc. She was apparently a real character. We could use a few more articles on women of that era. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 02:18, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)