User talk:Bryson109/archive2

Archive 2 – 1 January to 31 March 2007
(Created by Move)

hi, thanks

Thanks, I will look into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. From my quick first glance it looks interesting. The Gomm 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars

Hi Bryson,

I have posted some possible revisions to the Template:Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars. You can see them as previous versions of the campaignbox. I would appreciate your feedback. The Gomm 05:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gomm,
I like what you did, I can't think of anything to change, nice job. --Bryson 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Mainz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 17:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all of your contributions to Unterseeboot articles. --Ineffable3000 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ineffable3000 much appreciated. --Bryson 18:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Heinkel He 46, was selected for DYK!

On January 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinkel He 46, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help

Hey, thanks for telling me about my articles, I was so sure they didn't exist. Thank you for fixing me up about that, I will try to be more sure from now on. Thanks again, Anonymous Dissident

Copyright Problem

I have realised that your issue with the panzer division page is not misplaced. I am going to reword it as much as I can. Is it possible that you please take down the infringement, so I can make it viable by copyright? I see that your concerns are valid, but I really would like to know why you take such great interest in me and my articles. Thankyou Anonymous Dissident.

No, I can't take it down, only an admin can remove it, you can re-write the article on it's talk page.--Bryson 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, your article u 172 is only 964, not over 2000, I'm sure of that. Plus its counted as a stub. And why do you keep saying that my u boat articles need a cleanup? in general they are about twice as large as your own?Anonymous Dissident.

I tagged only one U-boat article! not because of length, but because of poor grammar and spelling. Also note I helped expand your Unterseeboot 30 article and gave my support for it on the DYK page. --Bryson 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bryson, I feel as if there is an animosity between us, I don't know if you feel the same. I don't want to have an animosity with any fellow wikipedian, so I hope that things can become more friendly between us. And I do appreciate your help on Unterseeboot 30 and the U-boat articles in general. Feel free to remove the tags on your articles if you have not already. Regards, Anonymous Dissident.

Well I don't feel any animosity. I cleaned up the articles you tagged, they did need to be fixed up a little. Regards, --Bryson 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Blohm und Voss Bv 144

On 22 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blohm und Voss Bv 144, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution. — ERcheck (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Unterseeboot 656, was selected for DYK!

On January 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unterseeboot 656, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On 26 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 18th Panzer Division (Germany), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Savidan 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On 26 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinkel He 50, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Savidan 18:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another U-boat buff!

Hello

I have been looking for another U-boat buff and I think I have found one. So far I have only done one major re-write of a U-boat article (Unterseeboot 28 (1936)) but more will be done soon. I just wanted to know if there is a U-boat group around here. Also I saw that some articles have infoboxes now. Would it be possible to put total tonnage sunk in there somewhere. Ark Royal 20:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
Yes, you have found another U-Boat Buff. I don’t know if there is a U-Boat group, but there is the Military History Group, which has a German Military sub-group. Yes, there is a section for tonnage sunk by a U-Boat in the info box, see U-656. Regards, --Bryson 21:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Eylau or Battle of Preussich Eylau

Well yes this would be alright in my opinion, if english historiography use name Eylau (which is wrong). Try to see translation of the text on Deutsch Wikipedia (Schlacht bei Preußisch Eylau). It's not my personal idea I just want to help you a little bit becouse your text is translated in several languages (english is common language)and those translations don't have redirect: Battle of Preussisch Eylau (in italian for example). So... little mistake makes many huge mistakes on many wikipedias... Unfortunetly there is a second reason why your Article should be changed, try to see articles on english wiki 1. - Ilawa (Deutsch Eylau) and 2. - Bagrationowsk (Preussich Eylau). As I understand name Eylau is refering to both this towns? as well as your Battle of Eylau? If I were you (but I'm not) I would copy the article Battle of Eylau to Redirect Battle of Preussich Eylau and create redirect: Battle of Eylau. Belive me I have read a lot of books from many sources about this battles and one very big compendium 93 pages in polish called "Bitwa pod Pruską Iławą" (Bitwa pod Preussisch Eylau)writen by Tomasz Rogacki ISBN 83-11-09807-7, en: Battle of Preussich Eylau. It uses many Sources from all involved and not involved nations:

• • Bogdanovic M.J., Istoria carstvowanija Imperatora Aleksandra I i Rossiii w ego vremenji, S. Petersburg 1869.
  • Bourdeau E., Campagnes modernes, t. 2, Paris 1916.
  • Camon J., Napoleoński system prowadzenia wojny, Warszawa 1926.
  • Campagne des armes francaises en Prusie, en Saxe, en Polotne sous commendament de S.M. l’Empereur et roi 1806 – 1807.
  • Coignet J.R., Von Marengo bis Waterloo, Stuttgart 1910.
  • Correspodance de Napoleon I.
  • Dumas M., Precis des evenements militaries ou essays historiques sur les campagne de 1799 a 1815, Paris 1826.
  • Foucart P., Campagne de Pologne. Novembre – decembre 1806. Janvier 1807, t. 2, Paris 1882.
  • Geschichte des Krieges von Preussen und Russlands gegen Frankreich in den Jahren 1806 und 1807, Berlin 1835
  • Goltz C., Von Jena bis Pr. Eylau, Berlin 1907.
  • Grenier P., Etude sur 1807, Paris 1907.
  • Herbst S., Potrzeba Historii – Manewr Olsztyn – Jonkowo, Warszawa 1978.
  • Hildebrandt, Die Schlacht bei Pr. Eylau am 7 und 8 Februar 1807.
  • Hopfner E., Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1855.
  • Jany C., Geschichte der Koniglich – Preussischen Arme bis zum Jahre 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1927.
  • Jomini H., Zarys sztuki wojennej, Warszawa 1966.
  • Kircheisen F., Napoleon. Die Memoiren seinen Lebens.
  • Kukiel M., Wojny napoleońskie, Warszawa1927.
  • Lettow – Vorbeck P., Der Krieg von 1806 und 1807, t. 3, Berlin 1896.
  • Marbot J.B., Memoires du gen. Bon de Marbot. Genes – Austerlitz – Eylau, t. I, Paris 1891.
  • Michajłowski – Danilevski, Opisanije wtoroj wojny Impieratora Aleksandra I s Napoleonom w 1806 i 1807 godu, S. Petersburg 1846.
  • Napoleon et l’Empire Empire. 1 – 2, Paris 1969.
  • Napoleon, Meine ersten Siege, b.r.w.
  • Operations du III – eme Corps 1806/1807.
  • Pelet, Memorial du depot generale de la guerre, t. 8.
  • Savary J.A.M., Memoiren des Herzogs von Rovigo.
  • Schachtmayer F., Schlacht bei Preussisch Eylau und Gefecht bei Waltersdorf, Berlin 1857.
  • Schalchtfelder in Ostpreussen, b.r.w.
  • Thiers L.A., Historia Konsulatu i Cesarstwa, t. 4, Warszawa 1850.
  • Tiry J., Eylau – Friedland – Tillsit, Paris 1967.

I can only mention that I have created the article Battle of Pruska Iława in Polish and i have used from your article one information that marshal Ney said after battle "What a masacre! And for no outcome." You can use my images to make your article better, they are in public domain and I have exported them on Commons server (copy names of images on polish wiki and find them on commons). You should find more informations about this battle. It is one of very big importance. After this battle both armies were almost destroyed and soldiers faith in victory on both sides have disapired... This was the only reason why Napoleon was seeking on spring final victory to persuade Russia to peace table. After this Battle Napoleons soldiers were screaming Viva le Paix(Long live the Peace) instead of Viva l'Emperour(Long Live Imperor) as they usuall were doing. You must understand that every commander tried to find safe quaters for winter. In the time of Napoleonic Wars to lead an army in the middle of winter in -15 Degress was like Suicide that's why Benigsen has made huge strategical mistake trying to engage Napoleon in this time. If he would wait till spring when he was joined by reinforcments he would have some chances to win Battle of Friedland instead of this he has lost half of his men at Preussich Eylau. Yours Greatfully Azglahal 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC) CYA.

I agree fully that the correct name is Battle of Preussich-Eylau, but there are other articles on wikipedia that use a 'common name' as the article name. But if you feel strongly about it – I have no objections to the article being re-named and Battle of Eylau being the re-direct. Regards, --Bryson 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryson I can't decide. I don't know British Historiography... But I now that you can't decide yourselve. You should go to libery and well... dig... dig hard. And after that you will know what to do. You are Englishman not I...yet :P. Best wishes Azglahal 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC) CYA Mate.

As far as I know, English language texts have always called the battle "Eylau", and so have French texts. Similarly, the battle of Wagram has always been known by that name (in both French and English) though the name of the place is actually (if I'm not mistaken) Deutsch Wagram. There are cases in which different nations have different names for battles. Examples are Salamance (British) versus Los Arapiles (French), and Borodino (French) versus Moskva (Russian). Names of battles are conventional, and do not necessarily reflect geography (the battle of Waterloo took place some distance from the village of that name and the name was clearly chosen because it was less French than Mont Saint Jean, the place where the battle actually happened, and because Waterloo had a vaguely English sound to it, and would be easy for English people to pronounce. Salamanca is probably another case of Wellington choosing a name that would be easier for English people, just as non-Slavs probably find Borodino easier than Moskva. Encyclopaedia entry names should probably reflect conventional usage because people use an encyclopaedia to expand their knowledge of a name or word they have found elsewhere. English speaking people will find that almost all the books they read refer to the battle as "Eylau", not Preussisch Eylau. However, none of this should be a problem: an electronic encyclopaedia can cope with different names very easily because of electronic searches and redirection. If necessary, entries can point out where conventional names are misleading or incorrect, but they should also draw attention to conventional usage. That is what an encyclopaedia is for: allowing people to increase their knowledge by starting from something they already know. I feel one should never lose sight of the fact that an encyclopaedia is for its users, not its compilers, and one should always ask oneself what the users will need. If one doesn't, the users will go elsewhere.
Having said that, why is the entry for the battle of Arcole entitled "The Battle of the Bridge of Arcole"? I may be losing my memory, but I don't recall the word "bridge" usually appearing in the name in either English or French. Iorwerth Glyndwr 13:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Arado Ar 197, was selected for DYK!

On February 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arado Ar 197, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Unterseeboot 106, was selected for DYK!

On February 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unterseeboot 106, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 21:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Unterseeboot 256, was selected for DYK!

On February 6, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unterseeboot 256, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unterseeboots

Hi there, I see your doing some expansion work on U-boats. I had a go at that myself some time agao, but other commitments forced me to give up. There's a useful infobox avaliable which nicely encapsulates the information on each boat which you might want to consider using, see any of my articles for an example. Good luck--Jackyd101 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about the info box, but I have not been using it much. Your user page looks like it should be helpful. Thanks for the info. --Bryson 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation

Hi Bryson: How on earth did you detect an impersonation using your signature so fast? I was going to notify you, but you noticed quicker. pbryan 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, He made an unconstructive edit to an article on my watch list, Napoleonic Wars, I left a warning on his talk page, then looked at his contributions, where I found the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial literature page, and him signing as me.--Bryson 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message

Thank you for your message of welcome. I'm still struggling to fathom how this system of communication works, but I'll do my best. I don't really have time to make a proper contribution to the Military History Project, and in any case I have my own web-site where I would be likely to post anything I write. But having done eight years of research and written a book on Napoleon's early career, I didn't feel I could let the entries on Lodi and Arcole remain as they were, because they were perpetuating largely unsubstantiated popular legends about Napoleon instead of giving properly researched historical information. As far as I am aware, there is no contemporary account of Napoleon being pushed off the bridge at Arcole. Indeed, there does not seem to be any contemporary account of him reaching the bridge at all. I seem to recall that there are accounts of him slipping into the marsh, but I can't remember exactly where I found them (I haven't got my notes to hand). His Polish ADC, Sułkowski, describes Bonaparte trying to lead the troops forward along the dyke, but Sułkowski was knocked out and didn't see the end of the episode. Estienne also describes it (see Kryn, Le petit tambour d'Arcole). But this episode is only a tiny part of a complex and debilitating battle that lasted for three whole days, and included serious fighting on the French left flank, some two miles from the bridge of Arcole. I may try and expand the entry if I have time, but I am also in the middle of another piece of research on another subject. Best of luck, Iorwerth Glyndwr 13:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one of the battles in the Revolutionary Wars box appears as Trebia instead of Trebbia. I've tried to clean up the entry on FM Wurmser, but the page name really needs changing in my opinion. Iorwerth Glyndwr 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right, it should be Trebbia. I re-named the page (Battle of Trebbia (1799)). You can re-name a page by clicking 'move' at the top of the page, next to 'history'. Regards, --Bryson 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

Hi, Bryson, you gave me notice that I change Borodino casualties, right? well, if you didn't know, there is a lot of contradiction on that matter, and wikipedia page also contradicts itself, stating different casualties. It is just that lowest estimate for French is stated near highest estimate for russians, which is simple BIAS. I hope wikipedia will refrain from being biased towards one side or another in future.

thank

From 74.98.218.153 (talk · contribs)

Yes published sources do give different figures, but figures in the info box were cited (and are the generally accepted numbers), and it is not a good idea to changed cited sources. Both French and Russian casualties are from the same source, so it is not using the highest estimate for the Russians. If I misinterpreted your edit I am sorry, and I now believe it was a good faith edit. --Bryson 04:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK (13 Feb)

On 13 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brunswick Manifesto (1792), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Test

Test of user page link

works. --Bryson 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Submarine

Greetings fellow Military historian! A new infobox for submarines/u-boat is available created in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history design and following the appropriate guidelines. Since you are doing a lot of work on the Unterseeboot subject, I just wanted to let you know, so you hopefully will include this infobox on articles you add or edit. Take a look at the articles Unterseeboot 47 (1938) and Unterseeboot 66 (1941) and Unterseeboot 96 (1940) which are all using the new infobox in more or less detailed formats. Keallu 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, the new infobox looks alot better than the old style box. --Bryson 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons POTY identity confirmation

I confirm to be the same user. --Bryson 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting closed. --Bryson 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Death lists

Hello. Per your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deaths in Scream, could I please draw your attention to this multiple AFD. Cheers. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons POTY identity confirmation

I confirm that I just voted for the Commons Picture of the Year under my commons account, Bryson109.

Voting over, --Bryson 15:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm sorry you fell that way but i went to their concert(or at least I gave the tickets to my friend) at the metro centre. And if you don't believe me then you can erase it and I'll leave it alone.
Stephen MacInnis (Halifax, Nova Scotia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.158.139 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The Concert was at the Halifax common, I am sure of it. In fact look - --Bryson 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Uncompleted U-boat projects, was selected for DYK!

On February 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uncompleted U-boat projects, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

six (five) days campaign

I would like inform you of an incongruency with the Six Days Campaign article. The campaign is called the Six Days Campaign, but however, if you look at the dates, they are clearly spanning over five days. i do not know if it is a misnomer with the event or an inaccuracy with the article. I can't tell because i would normally look it up on Wikipedia, but this article has a problem, so I don't know. The person who wrote this article should be alerted of this inconsistency and should be confronted. Also, indicate on the page that if there is in fact a misnomer of the event, it is a misnomer and not an inconsistency with the article itself.

Thx yur everyday 1337 Wikipedia Usr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.102.95 (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

What source says it is the 5-days campaign? All sources I have call it the 6-Days campaign. --Bryson 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Black May (1943) on DYK for 25 Feb 2007

On 25 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black May (1943), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

militaryphotos.net.

I dont see the problem with my entry. note on the page r.e. blocks

"Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia."

I have repeated expressed my openess to negotiation and dispute resolution on the discussion page. That random people keep on coming back and removing my entry even after i have edited it in accordance with the NPOV rule indicates that it is them, in fact, who are the disruption.

The discussion of the matter on mp.net has revealed that many members acknowledge the truth of the entrys, and that they provide a good guide for new posters due to teh fact mp.net is fraught with traps about what can and cannot be disussed, and that they are not necessarily protected by the forum rules. That a few people actively discussing the matter disagree with my edits is not sufficvient reason to remove them and label me the problem.

your thoughts appreciated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.174.104.13 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

You are surly a Banned member of Mp.Net, and using the article to bash mp.net. The forum rules are posted and not much different from other forums -- you clearly violated the rules, got banned and are using wikipeida as a 'bash board' for Mp.Net.--Bryson 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats your point? is the info posted accurate or not in your opinion? even on mp.net, long-time users agree it is accurate.

Historical Eastern Germany

Perhaps you'd be interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

Hello Bryson,

I noticed that you removed a link that I added to a free book, Napoleon's Military Maxims, classifying it as SPAM. I am new to Wikipedia so perhaps this violated a policy of which I am unaware, but I do not see the difference between links to WOWIO and links to Project Gutenberg. Could you please explain.

Thanks,

Max

Project Gutenberg is in the references section, maybe it is link spam, but I don't want to remove it, since it may have been used as a source of information. And as for "I am new to Wikipedia so perhaps this violated a policy of which I am unaware" No your not new, I looked at your talk page you know what you did. --Bryson 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly is it that I did? I am "new" as of late February, 2007 -- less than a month. In my first-day enthusiasm, I began by adding links to several WOWIO books a la Project Gutenberg that I believe offer unique value to readers. A few of these links were removed without explanation despite my follow-up inquiries. I have since researched Project Gutenberg policy and precedent, and again see no issue aside from a few overzealous editors. So, in accordance with the Wikipedia:External links section of the Manual of Style and in the spirit of keeping the discussion constructive, I again respectfully request an explanation as to why the link was removed. Thanks, Max

It has been explained to you already.--Bryson 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being Stalked by Pbryan

It is true. Pbryan is stalking you. Just go to [1] and see for yourself - BigFrank101

I don't think that is the case at all. He says he is watching my user page because I was impersonated by a certain someone.--Bryson 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign my autograph page

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for signing my autograph book! · AO ^Talk 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature is excessively large and highly disruptive, please reduce the size. Thank you. John Reaves (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

???? --Bryson 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC) This ???????

I was referring to Bryson^Talk, which doesn't look nearly as big now (but still big) now that I'm using Windows and IE, it was huge in Firefox on Mac OS. John Reaves (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But I only use it on Autograph pages, if you actually looked at my talk page and other talk pages (such as Talk:Napoleon_I_of_France), you will see I use the normal signature every time.--Bryson 20:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You used it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books, that's were I saw it. If you don't use it anywhere else, I don't see a problem with it. John Reaves (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to ask you about this too, looks like it's already been done though. I used to use a larger signature, and it didn't look that large under firefox fonts, but when I saw it in IE one day it was huge! Since then I've axed the size settings on it. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 10 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Demi-Brigade, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Wars France lost

There is nothing remotely "divisive and inflammatory" about the "Wars France lost" category. It's completely factual. To nominate the category for speed deletion is obviously a sign that you're pushing some sort of bias agenda of your own. Shame on you. -- Reid1867 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is there not a category for wars other countries have lost? Why only France? It seams like French bashing to me, since France has been singled out.--Bryson 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then create a category for wars other countries have lost! Don't try to have other categories deleted just because you don't like information they give out. You need to check your bias at the door. Whether you like it or not, the "Wars France lost" category is factually correct. -- Reid1867 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We could easily create those other categories, but they would be vastly oversimplistic and completely devoid of any historical significance and context. Plus the creation of the category is not the only troubling thing; I sincerely doubt your knowledge of French military history (and military history period) given some of the articles you added the category to. We are trying to avoid problems like this in the future, hence our thinking that this category is a bad idea.UberCryxic 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wars France lost

I've delisted this as a CSD divisive template. Please list this on WP:CFD if you would like it deleted still. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason? --Bryson 04:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no reason?--Bryson 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So no reason? You just decided to remove it without any reason. Many fellow military history users believe it was a valid Speedy delete and should have been handled as such. The fact you will not answer my question, makes me believe that you do not know what you are doing. Also the lack of an answer is very unprofessional for an admin. --Bryson 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User Ginkgo100 Talk page

I just trying to delete my conversations. Why do you prevent me from doing it?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MikeMcGD (talk • contribs) Time (UTC)

You don't remove content from another users talk page, ok.--Bryson 00:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My Talk page

Can you explain me why I can't delete messages from my own page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MikeMcGD (talk • contribs) Time (UTC)

Its against the rules of wikipedia. Plus if you do people may get the wrong idea, thinking your trying to hide something. --Bryson 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, while discouraged it's not banned. Wikipedia:User page. The general consensus AFAIK is that while it's okay to strongly discourage users from removing warnings from their talk page, you shouldn't revert them if they do. Removing a warning is taken as a sign that a user has read the warning. In this specific case, I added the indef blocked template which is enough. The indef blocked template should remain. BTW, mike, do note that removing the content on your page doesn't mean it's gone. It's still easily visible via the history Nil Einne 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should point out to you that User:MikeMcGD did not just remove content from his/her talk page, but another users talk page and has been banned for it. I reverted their page because I wanted other users to know what they were up to, and for an admin to step in and help.--Bryson 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sw!ms

I've just posted to the AFD that this article does meet at least one WP:MUSIC criterion which means it warrants at least a redirect somewhere instead of deletion. Could you please read my comment and perhaps reconsider your opinion. (Please leave a note on my talk page to let me know you read this). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point I will change my vote to a re-direct.(CC to your talk page per request)--Bryson 03:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)