This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
PLEASE DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 18 and November 3 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Welcome to my Talk page.
"Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me." --Dr. Hannibal Lecter, So please use rubber bullets, ok? ;>
READY...AIM...FIRE AWAY!
Always happy to help, and it's nice to see a fellow TFC player here on Wikipedia. Hope you enjoy your stay. No one has given you the welcome message yet, so I'll go ahead and do that for the hell of it:
Welcome!
Hello, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Nufy818:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome! And please feel welcome to come visit our server at empyre.no-ip.org:27015. Tell em you're a friend of BadMojo and the red carpet will be rolled out. Unless I'm on, in which case I'll roll it out for you :).
--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)18:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think we should be replacing accuracy and detail for simplicity. Subscriptions dip into legal territory - that shouldn't be ignored. Be bold! ;-) --Tom Edwards20:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on a free encycleopedia, not a corporate-legal brief full of spin and double-speak. We are striving to be informative and objective here, not sock puppets for the gaming industry.
On certain matters you will find me quite bold, sir. :)
--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)01:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find that explanation is itself biased. You recently edited the paragraph describing how Steam has completely locked out illegitimate users from its network from being 'very' to only 'somewhat' successful: I would have thought 100% internal security would be the very defenition of success! If you aren't going to be a little more moderate, it might be for the best to call in an admin to sort things out. --Tom Edwards12:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no such thing as 100% security. Valve and those who tote their party line are deluding themselves by believing otherwise. But that is no reason to delude our readers with a deluge of circumlocution. You accuse me of being immoderate? I merely changed one word in that entire biased paragraph. I could have, would have, deleted the entire thing, but I do not wish to engage in a editing war with you.
By all means, please, call in the admins. I trust their judgements far more than yours, which I believe are biased in favor of Valve. Moreover I think you have ties to the gaming industry which makes for a clear conflict of interest in writing any fair, unbiased article on the subject.
Have a nice day:)
--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)00:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as internal security is concerned, Steam has had complete success since crackers gave up early this year. It's a fact. --Tom Edwards08:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? Do you know any of these crackers you mention, personally? Have any of them confirmed this as fact? Do you now or have you ever worked for Valve?
No, that would be just as bad as saying Steam is uncrackable. Besides, if I knew it had been cracked and how and posted about it here, that would constitute original research...a Wiki NONO :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to WikiProject Battles R.D.H. I hope you enjoy belonging to our group. If you need anything just ask... But if I need anything from you, will you accept old German beer as payment? Bye... Spawn Man04:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot R.D.H for polishing some of my articles. It's good to get fresh eyes & words on the articles. The German beer I ordered from Poland as payment got drunk by this guy on the ship, so now I have to order a whole new crate. It'll be a while... But in the mean time... My newly finished article Great Retreat is now up for some of that life's supply of turtle wax you have... I've asked around, but no one really cares, so I thought I'd ask you... I myself have no idea how to put pictures on articles. So I would love if you could "polish" the article & maybe add a few pics or maps? If you can't, that's okay... Bye... Spawn Man07:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SM, glad to be of help. I will most certainly have a look at your Great Retreat and see what I can do. Getting pics is easy. But they 1) Have to be in the Wiki Commons. If they are not then you must upload them there..which can be done simply by pressing the upload option under toolbox. And 2) You must know the name of the image you are trying to upload. That name (including extension) goes in the image tag which can be brought up anytime simply by clicking the "Embeded Image" icon.
So it is very much like the [[]] internal links tags for articles and users, except it has Image: in front and an optional |thumb afterwards.
If all else fails, there's always the old Copy and Paste :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)06:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the battleboxes! A small request, however - please don't use the thumb attribute on the images, since this will override the explicit 300px size attribute and force a strange box-in-a-box display. Kirill Lokshin00:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to see that the icon is actually useful :)
As far as the image tags go, the 300px attribute should replace the thumb attribute if it is present, or just be added if there are no other attributes. (I think a note to that effect was inserted into the instructions for {{battlebox}} at some point, but I could be entirely wrong about that). Kirill Lokshin01:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sooooo much for the map in the Great Retreat!!! It's awesome!! It's better than I expected!! I am forever in your debt Sir R.D.H. Ghost in the machineious III. If you need anything please ask... (Still waiting for the German beer though). Spawn Man03:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey it's all about the beer for me...the beer is the life:) But I'm so glad you like the map, young Sir. I only wish I could've found one from the GR itself, showing the armies' routes and engangements rather than from the, slightly later, Race To The Sea/Battle of Aisne phase. But one must work with what one has..what? I'm also glad you've taken such an avid interest in WWI. It too often gets treated as the bastard stepchild of military history or as a mere prologue to WWII. This is a shortsight and injustice. There are so many unsung heroes and almost forgotten battles from that conflict which deserve greater attention. Cheers M8!
I'm glad we're friends... By the way, how do you get one of those little stars on your user page for doing something on articles? Do you put it on there yourself or wait for someone to actually recognise your work & give a toss about you before putting one on? I'm amiss.... P.S. Check out my new article; Maurice Tillet. Just like your opinion on whether it good or crap... You're my opinion man... If I need an opinion, you're the man. P.P.S. What is DOOD Ex Machina?. Spawn Man04:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Those lil stars have to be given by someone else. They wouldnt really mean much if you could just give em to yourself all the time, now would they:)
2) Sure! I'll check your latest out, then post my findings either on its discussion page or on your talkpage.
We will forever be immortalized in the Wikipedia universe. I myself, am surprised the fact made it to DYK, since it was the first fact I've submitted. Of course, it wouldn't be as good as it is without your help. Bye, Spawn Man02:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. I noticed a few people have been editing the article lately, so at least the article got that out of it. Plus I also left my sources on the article's talk page to clarify the whole sources discussion. Could do with 1 mil however... P.P.S. I'm thinking of putting a "Wikifriends" sections on my user page. Do you want to be on it since you're my main colaborator in the war of facts? Mull it over...[reply]
Nothing to mull over here, Sure! I'd be honored to be on your WikiFList..:)As for the edit orgy...it comes with the territory, I'm afraid. Some, like Jeff Q, will make positive suggestions and changes, whilst others will make crap edits which add little or nothing and a few might even outright vandalize our work. We need to keep our eyes out and our fingers at the ready the next couple days. Besides, it will be good practice for when you get a Featured Article.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)08:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add you anyway. Muahahaa... By the way, if you want another chance to be immoralized like with Maurice Tillet, you can help me get the Great Retreat article up to FA status so I can submit it. We can be like a team. S.M.R.D.H.T. (Spawn Man and R.D.H Team).After all, you make my articles all pretty with your polishes.. Bye... Spawn Man08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) BTW; I've left a list of stuff to do about the Great Retreat on its talk page. It would be awesome if you could see if you could do anything on it to help. I'll try my best to do the list, but you're much better at pics & better with your words than I am.[reply]
No worries, You will become good with words and pics as well with time and practice (Only A few weeks ago I didnt know how to play with Pics on the Wiks either). I'll have another look at the GR and see what I can do. Am busy with other things too though, so many battle articles need expanding or rewriting or just decent boxes. Plus now this completely unexpected Tillet thing. But hey, we already are a team! Maybe not the A-Team but a team, of sorts. One thing though, why does your name get to be first huh? I have seniority as well as senility ya know :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)12:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How bout R.S & S.R. Ltd? Heheheee.... P.S. Left a site which has paranormal story on Tillet talk page... P.P.S. I also expanded the Great Retreat a bit too...
Just thought I'd give you a heads up; I'm going to be creating the Second Battle of the Aisne soon (tomorrow or day after), & then I'll be able to enter it in the DYK section. So when it's up & going, you could polish it if you want, & get credit for working on it before anyone else (much like the Tillet article). Just so you know... Spawn Man05:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I See, you're on an honor roll this week SM! I'll wait until the edit frenzy/orgy dies down before I do anything major with it though. Better that than ending up in another pointless arguement on the discussion page about every little change. We must be bold, but as in battle the timing of our boldness is everything :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this with the article's creator, chief author and contributor first, User:Shauri. I see you are part of the German Wikipedia. So please join the English Wikipedia also, if you wish to edit here. Of course you don't have to, but it will give your edits here a lot more clout, along with your obviously firm command of English :) Danke --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I spent a LOT of time on that article. But the subject ORDERED me to :) I discovered this unsung hero of WWII after reading his obit in 81. I wrote a short term paper on him for one of my history and JROTC classes in High School. Got A's and some acclaim, but I now shudder to think of how juvenile it was (shudder). In many ways, O'Connor was the closest the British had to a Rommel or a Patton in terms of his operational daring and brilliance. The Brits gained a reputation for being a small, plodding army in a vast maneuver war. He showed that with the right leadership they could blitz with the best of them. Unfortunately, he was denied the opportunity to prove this with adequete forces against a first-rate opponent. Rommel and he never really had a fair showdown, which had it occured, would have doubtless been one of the war's most spectacular clashes of commanders. Much as Rommel, later, would never get a fair chance to show what a conniving buffoon Monty truly was. Typing of whom, I could not help but subtly imply Monty had a hand in hamstringing O'Connor's late war career. I recall reading, in one of the less flattering Monty biogs, he even secretly felt O'Connor had been "Compromised" somehow due to his time as a POW. Such was Monty, as a General he was a great politician. C'east La guerre, Mon Frere...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Montgomery, as an operational planner he was one of the best, if not the best, of the war. I doubt the D-Day landings would have been remotely as successful without him. Interestingly he seems to have a very poor reputation among Americans, possibly because of his criticism of Patton (and generally behaving like a prima-donna). My personal favourite British general is Bill Slim though, probably the best general the western allies produced. Leithp09:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can shoot down Monty's rep as "best operational planner of the war" with two words-MARKET GARDEN. But I won't:) I actually fault him less for that than most do. I even admire the audacity of it. The problem was, when he did come up with a good plan, he picked the wrong chaps to execute it and kept them on too short a leash. He seemed to have a phobia of being overshadowed by one of his subordinates. If he had put a hard charger, like O'Connor at the head of XXX Corps and given him operational leeway, much as Wavell did in N. Africa, then it could damn well have succeeded. As for Overlord, I think he's given far too much credit. I conceed, though, he was a good planner and therefore an excellent staff officer, but that does not mean he was a great battlefield commander. In this was he was more like unto Eisenhower than his arch-rival Patton. No arguements from me about "Burma Bill" Slim, though. He was/is one of the best indeed. I also hold his comrade, Orde Wingate in very high esteem. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)13:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, now you've touched a sore subject. Replace Brian Horrocks as leader of XXX Corps! Sacrilege! Glad to hear you like Wingate though, there's nothing like putting a raving loony in charge of an army to get things going. I remember reading Wilfred Thesiger's autobiography and he wasn't too enamoured with having to work with Wingate in Ethiopia. Apparently Wingate travelled during the Gideon campaign on the back of a donkey wearing only his dressing gown. When they found water, Wingate would get off the donkey and place his bare arse in the pond to cool it off while the others were drinking. The guy was a head-case (as we say in Scotland). Leithp09:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(LAUGHS) Well one can't go through the desert on a donkey without getting a hot ass, now can one?! ;) Yes, Wingate was a madman, but there was a metheod to his madness. He got results, and got them with limited resources against superior enemies. And most, if not all, liked, if not loved him, an impressive achievement in itself. Give me a metheodical madman any day over an, obviously, very gallant commander whose chief gift seems to be a talent for getting himself wounded and captured. Not that I think Horrocks should have been left out of the game completely. By all means give him a command, such as VIII or XII Corps but let XXX Corps be run by blitzer, such as O'Connor or perhaps even Neil Richie.
A very innovative commander, and definitely a tonic for the morale of the Fourteenth Army. I doubt that I would be too keen on him were I on the first Chindit expedition though. Horrocks though was one of the best corps commanders of the war and a very likeable guy to boot (which counts for a lot in my book). And as for saying that Horrocks had a tendency to get wounded (true, but partly why I like him) then you might as well dismiss Rommel for getting ill at inconvenient times. Incidentally, since you seem to have an uncanny knowledge of British generals (for a non-Brit), how about Claude Auchinleck? Rarely has any general been treated so badly by his superiors. Apart from Neil Ritchie maybe, or Wavell. Hang on, there's a link here! Leithp15:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Nods) Oh indeed, except for maybe Belisarius, I can't think of another great general who was treated worse by his political "superiors" than The Auk. He was the one who truely beat Rommel at Alamein (with help from Hitler and Ultra of course). Rommel seems to have held him in a very high regard, another indication of his abilities. Auk also deserves credit for the earlier success of Operation Crusader, which I tried to give him in my article on the subject. He also had the bollocks to stand up to Churchill, who could be a real bully with his commanders. This is what ultimately cost him his job and wrote his ticket to India, where great Brit WWII desert generals went to watch their careers die (Wavell, O'Connor, Richie too...hey, there's another link;).
And yes, being liked counts for something in my book as well. Perhaps I was a bit unfair to "Hard Luck" Horrocks.
But regardless of who was in charge in the field, though, they must be given enough operational leeway to carry out their mission without constant interference from but with the full support of headquarters. Monty seemed loathe to give them this. Thanks for the compliment, the collaboration and a good discussion! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)11:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, none of the articles I've worked on has ever reached FA status so I'd be happy to help. I'll have another look through it at the weekend. I must admit that my knowledge of O'Connor is fairly scant though. A brief section in a book I read about Alamein, a short biography in a book of WW2 generals and a few fleeting references in books covering the whole war. Funnily enough I was re-reading John Keegan's World War 2 last night and he explicitly referred to the Western Desert campaign as not being an example of Blitzkrieg warfare, it being more akin to old-style cavalry battles. I think he referred to O'Connor's campaign as being colonial in character, with long mobile columns rather than the armoured spearheads of Guderian. Do you have an opinion on this? Leithp10:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great new pic! Thanks! If we continue in this direction, I think we can have it up to FA quality in no time. I still have to fill in a few "gaps"..interwar stuff mostly..just brief mentions for the sake of completeness. Don't want to bog down the article and have sections of it read too much like a resumee, but place the focus on O'Connor's WWII career where it belongs. I have the UTMOST regard for Sir John Keegan. I'm proud to say my well-worn copy of The Face Of Battle (he wryly noted its condition :) bears his autograph. But on Operation Compass he is, essentially, making the same arguement others have, namely- So what? It was against the Italians. To call it a "colonial" operation, is tantamount to comparing the "Eye-Ties" to a spear-wielding horde instead of a modern, mechanized army. Granted, they were a pretty poor army, but then again, so were the Ottoman Turks Allenby and T. E. Lawrence took on a generation before. So were the Iraqis, more recently. It's the quality of the victory, not the lack of the opponent's which should matter most. O'Connor used maneuver, combined arms, coordination between air, ground and naval units. As well as concentration of force (especially armor) at key points to achieve breakthroughs, then by-pass, isolate and eventually reduce strongpoints. If this was not a blitzkrieg, I don't know what is. Now how much credit O'Connor truly deserves for it, as opposed to Eric Dorman-Smith, is to my mind much more an issue than if was it a great blitkrieg-style victory or not. Thanks again for the pic, the help and the "brain food" M8:) Cheers--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)13:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to put it through peer review now? Hopefully there might be some constructive comments before it goes through the mauler at WP:FAC? Leithp11:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's put it up then. I'll let you have the honour, since it's 99.9% your work (and sterling work it is too). Leithp12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One other quick note; can you provide a source and copyright tag for the portrait of O'Connor? If it's official the copyright should have lapsed (being pre-1955). Leithp12:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd say more in the range of 85-90%, but thanks M8, I will take the honour ;) I believe I got the photo from a book...I think it was Cyril Nelson Barclay, Against all odds: the story of the first offensive in Libya, 1940-41, including extracts from O'Connor's personal narrative (Sifton Praed & Co, London, 1955) which I've added to the reference list. Of course the Photo itself is pre-55. Some fussgut is bound to bitch about it, but if they do so too much we can just UL a new version and relink, recaption--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)13:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I slapped a PD-BritishGov tag on and that should cover it. BTW you made my day by making a reference to Belisarius, I knew that reading that John Julius Norwich book would come in useful one day! Leithp13:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, gosh *blush* you gave me far too much credit in the talk page, but I like your summary of O'Connor there. Like all the other British generals of WW2 (with the possible exception of Slim), he now resides in the shadow of Monty and his reputation (and the controversy over that). Your article is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia should be aiming for. I doubt that any other general (no pun intended) encyclopedia has such a comprehensive and well-written article on O'Connor , if they have one at all. I missed the moment when you put the page up for FAC as I had an important engagement but, at the time of writing, the only response so far is a positive one. Here's hoping that they remain that way (or at the very least constructive). Leithp22:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias bro! But I'm more than happy to give you co-authorship and due credit. You have made a good article even better. I thought a nice long note on the talk page would help the cause better than a long speech on the nom page. Seems the case, the voting so far is 2 - 1 in favor. The only major problems seem to be the intro para is too short and some of the sections need to be merged. But those can be taken care of easily enough if others also bring them up. You really did'nt miss much...except my slight embarassment. Being an FA newbie, I didnt know you were supposed to add a template, then I found out you had to add another template, and that I put the temp in the wrong place. It was yet another learning experience ;) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's official: I've become an admin, and it is largely thanks to you. What can one say to thank a trusting, caring friend like you on such an occasion? Words are useless. There is no need to confirm our friendship; such things need no words, but facts, and you've always been there when I needed you. My dear Ghost, just a big THANK you!, from the heart. You'll always have a wikifriend over here. My warmest hug to you! Shauri!Yes babe?00:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Blush)once more you flatter me, sweet lady! Not that I mind it...by all means please continue! ;) However, you give me far too much credit. You EARNED the title of admin. It was our friend Wiglaf who nominated you. I was only one voice in the chourus singing your praise and a single vote in the long line of your supporters. So a big CONGRADULATIONS to you, my dearest friend. It is a joy to collaborate with you! You are a great contributor and will be a great admin as well. *MEGA WARM HUG* from your Dood Ex Machina --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back off, he's my friend.... Muahahahahaaaaa....cackle....splutter...*chokes to death*... (Just kidding, we can share him....maybe...). Spawn Man
Aye'm on my way, Turtle in tow. Oh, best leave off the links until I've had time to go over the article some. These copyright zealots tend to delete first and discuss later. Tis a wee-bit underhanded, but better than losing the entire article or ending up in an edit war or (mass) debate. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)14:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the job you did on the Aisne article. As the guy who deleted my other article said, it's hard writing about obscure people, cause they usually only have one or two sources... Thanks R.D.H....Spawn Man22:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. I guess you have to be an administrator before people start to recognise the work you do round here aye? Even all that work I've done on WWI, & still, not even a thanks from Project Battles, (apart from you), & the only way to become an administrator is by people recognising you?!? It becomes a vicious cycle... BTW, you should put your articles on your user page so I can see what you've done. P.P.S. Another of my articles appeared on DYK. P.P.P.S. Why was the third aisne a "rough" one?[reply]
Oh no, my dear Spawn, quite the opposite-you get recognized for your work FIRST, THEN you become an admin, that is if you havent made too many enemies along the way (or even want to be an admin in the first place, which is another matter). It is not quite the Catch-22 you make it out to be. The key, as with so much in life, is PERSEVERANCE. You've had 4 articles now featured on DYK, so you are getting recognition. You are on the right course. Fret not! Chin up! Good point too about my contribs. I need to assemble them in some semblance of an order. Not really sure how, though, (what format I want to present them in etc) and to be honest I'd rather spend time reading, writing and editing than doing this "chore", though it must be done eventually. Now about that 3rd Aisne...it was in pretty rough shape. You left out several important details. For instance there was no mention of the Kaiserschlacht to give it a greater strategic context (which is especially important given that you mentioned so many other related offensives and operations). No mention of the Strosstruppen or their infiltration tactics, which was of great significance to the operation's initial success. Not even the name of the offensive itself, Blucher-Yorck. All of this was readily available right here on Wiki, you could have easily found and added it yourself (there's a reason why we put in all those Infernal Internal Wiki-links ya know;). So this operation turned into more of a rewrite than a polish job. Still, I'm very happy with the outcome too. I think we have a good article on an important, but largely forgotten, battle. In fact of the 3 Aisnes, pain in the arse though it was, I like this one best. Cheers M8:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)12:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You think I was gonna make editing my work easy for you? (Laughs). Yeah my sources weren't the bestest. But cause you think it was a rewrite rather than a polish, you can be the article's co-writer? Mmmmm, Polish sausage..... Spawn Man22:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for object against your article....(Just kidding) There are too many red links, but I'll work on that, it's the least I can do...On second thought, after looking at them, they're way too advanced for me. I'd best leave them to the WWII experts. Spawn Man22:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both the articles Battle of Le Cateau & Battle of St. Quentin (1914) have been removed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I did those articles ages ago & other people have contributed to them, yet they still get blocked!!! Is there a way to get them unblocked???? This is just crazy!!! I'm so angry it's not funny. I didn't even use the source they stated!!!???!!! They said I used firstworldwar.com, but I got my info from another site & books!!!
Whew! Glad things got sorted out! It seems you're a marked Man, Spawn. SIGH...this is another, unfortunate, side effect of getting 4 DYK's in a short length of time. The envious and the anal are gunning for you. If it gets really bad move those articles to your sandbox where they cant get to them, then let me have a go at them. Then repost once the Fuhrer (as we WWII-headz like to say:) has died down. It is flattering, in a way, to be a high profile target. Though personally, I'd rather be a fast-moving target below the radar. Chin up bro! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the guy who blocked my article thought that because my article & the source's article had the same stats, (Number of casualties/dates etc), that it was a copy right problem. So we explained that that was not actually the case, so now all is good in the Wikipedia valley. Spawn Man09:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want to seem to be dressing you down on your talk page. Nor seem ungreatful for your friendship. But here's a word from the wise to the not yet as wise-Please Back off this whole confrontation with Wiglaf and Shauri. They've made every effort to make peace with you and get along. You should have accepted their offers and moved on. If you wish to hang out with a group of adults and be treated accordingly then behave as one. I know you are capable of this. Otherwise I fear for the future of our newly formed team here. And I really don't want to see you gone. We have a good rapport and work well together. Take care, my friend and please show them you are truly a Spawn Man and not a Spawn Boy.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound rude, but R.D.H. all I freaking said was;
Wiglaf:"Nice pictures on your user page" (to Shauri)
Spawn Man:"A bit creepy,....".
Now how was I supposed to know that he would start attacking me & threatening to block me for that???????
I get enough of this shit in the real world. I thought someone would support me, obviously not. I guess you're not my real friend, because a real friend would tell Wigwam to calm the fuack down, as it was only a joke!! I don't care if you or your friends block me, cause as of today, there wont be a user spawn man.... I don't need you, or anyone else. I already have another user I've created & will either be doing work anonymously or through that. I thought a person with a Phd would be a bit more sensible that a freaking two year old. I didn't want to do this, but I'm sick 7 tired of being bullied for anything. I'm sick of it. I've had my share of shit in this life & I would like to be funny & make a joke once in a while to take the spot light away from what utter shit the world is. How was I supposed to know he had a crush on Shauri? He's acting like some alpha male, eg, the warning on her user page, the crude remarks, the who's your daddy personality... I'm done with all this. I don't expect you to contact me R.D.H., cause I know who your buddies are now. Hope you have fun with them. (You're not getting your beer now). Now if you excuse me I have some deleting to do... Spawn Man00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm truly sorry it has come to this. But the choice is yours not mine. The world can, indeed, be a shit sandwich but bitterness, paranoia and tantrums only makes it worse. Clearly, you have a keen intellect but also some growing up to do and issues to resolve. I only wish I could help you with those as much as I do on your articles. But we must chart our own course and fight our inner demons. In the end we are just a bunch a flawed people trying to make a decent encycleopedia together. Please take care of yourself and try to have a good life. I sincerely hope you do and maybe, one day, if you change you mind we can be a team again...if I'm still around. In the meantime I will still regard you as a friend. Best to you, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)10:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC) PS/For the record, I may have known my "buddies" here, for a bit longer, but I've collaborated with you a lot more over a much shorter period than I have with any of them. I'm going to miss you.[reply]
Hello Ghost. You have written a fantastic article on O'Connor (or Ristard Ua Conchobhar as his people would once have called him). It should be FA. Listen, I don't suppose you know much about his ancestry? With a middle name like Nugent I suppose his roots lay in Leinster? Just curious. Fergananim15:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fergananim and thank you for the good words. Interesting question! I have done little research on this beyond his parentage. His father was Major Maurice O'Connor, of the Royal Irish Fusiliers (as I mentioned in the article) and his mother was Lilian Morris. However, I suspect, his roots are more Scots-Irish, specifically the "Borderers" among whom are many families with long traditions of military service (including some of my own ancestors BTW :). This would make him more of a British "Mutt" than a true son of Erin. He obviously had strong attachments to Scotland and its people (can't really fault him for that ;) but whether this was due to ancestery or not I'm uncertain. The "Nugent" part is very curious, indeed. I'm not sure where that comes from. It had me looking through the Wiki here the other day and I found a line of Earls of Nugent with lands in County Westmeath, but they became extinct in 1850. I doubt he had any connection to them, though it is not unimaginable. Wish I could provide you with more info on this. But thanks again for the compliments, the support and the "brain food" :)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)16:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghost! Thanks for the reply; I'll keep this in mind and dig around to see what I can come up with. Its the only thing that I can think of adding to what is essentially a flawless article. Keep more articles of this quality comeing, whatever the subject. Your fan, Fergananim18:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well met again Fergananim, please tell me what you find. Now my curiousity on the matter has been engaged as well. I would especially like to know if my Borderer theory pans out or if he has any connection at all to the Earls of Nugent. Thanks again for the kind words and encouragement! Your friend, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howya Ghost. Will do, though I should warn you that this may take some time, as I have indifferent health. I would'nt go so far as to say he had any direct connection to the Nugent Earls per se, just that this is quite a common name in Leinster. Connor, on the other hand, could be any one of the dynastys of the name in Ireland, though if (because of the Nugent connection) we may assume Leinster roots, he may be descended from the Ui Conchobhar Failige, who were kings of what is now Offaly. Excellent soliders and tactictians too, I might add; remained independant despite the Normans. Drop a line in a few weeks if you don't hear from me. Slan! Fergananim17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fergananim, I'm sincerely sorry to hear about your state of health, my friend. By all means, please take as much time as as needed. If I can be of ANY assistance, just let me know. I'll gladly help in any way possible. Your knowledge of the subject, obviously, far exceeds mine. And your Leinster thesis, seems very well grounded. Although still, a bit of a daunting task, given just how many O'Connors there are (and were). But a pint of Guniness says you are right;> I shall most definately stay in touch, and look forward to your findings. Erin Go Bragh! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ghost! Thanks for the concern, it is appreciated. Now, you may as a subject of general (no pun intended) interest wish to peruse Richard Docherty's "Ireland's Generals in World War II", published by Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2004. On our particular subject of interest, it states that O'Connor's family home (which I take to mean where his father was born and raised) was at Ballybrock, Co. Offaly, or Queen's County as it was back then. His father, Maurice O'Connor, retired in 1894 but died following an accident in 1903. Up to that point it seems Richard lived at Ballybrock with his parents. However, after Maurice's death, his widow Lillian Morris returned home to Scotland. This is where the strong ties to Scotland come in. Had his father lived, O'Connor would probably have joined his father's unit. Lillian was the daughter of Sir John Morris, KCIS (Knight Commander of the Star of India), who at one time was Governor of India's central provinces. That's all I've got at present but it does seem that I was on the right track concerning his ancestry as an Ua Conchobhair Failghe. If you think this would add to the O'Connor article, please feel free to use it. Cheers! Fergananim18:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Fergananim! Great to hear back from you so soon, my friend! Interesting...it would seem both our hunches are right so far. He was Scots-Irish and on, the Irish side, seems to be from the Ua Conchobhair Failghe. I shall most certainly incorporate your findings into the article, along with proper credit to you and your source. Just in time too, I have a feeling it will be going up on the main page in the next few days. Thanks and Take care, my friend! Keep up the good hunt! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. You keep putting the HDR para under the Steam article with the same comment, that it affects all Steam games. Besides the fact that it doesn't (HDR is purely a Source feature), Steam itself performed very well, distributing the update without any noticable number of problems. The fact that the update harmed people's games has nothing to do with the service, as it does not attempt to audit updates to make sure they work. True, there is (still!) no option to decline updating, but not only is that is covered elsewhere in the article, through the same mechanism Valve could have cleanly reverted the update.
In short, the section is for centralised Steam issues, whereas this is a centralised Source issue. Thanks. --Tom Edwards16:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph raises a valid problem which DOES EFFECT Steam and SHOULD be addressed. Perhaps the para needs some editing by your arguements, but that does not justify deleting it entirely as you have repeatedly done. By your same logic, why did you edit instead of delete the section on problems with DoD:Source? This is part of a persistant pattern of behavior. Anytime someone makes a legitimite cricism of Steam or Valve, you jump in give some pro-Steam/Pro-Valve Spin or you delete it entirely under some flimsy justification or for some twisted legal/technical reason. Your edit history on the Steam article clearly bears this out. And you still have not addressed my question in our earlier discussion regarding your connections to the gaming industry in general and Valve in particular. Be Bold and be HONEST:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)16:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The DOD Source problems, which, for your information, I expanded and improved upon, and in fact the whole section, which also for your information, I wrote from scratch, are examples of problems that affect Steam, legitimate criticism you might say. Steam not being able to connect, Steam crashing, and Steam not accepting credit card details in that order. The HDR update on the other hand does not affect Steam in any way, unless you know something I don't, in which case please tell.
Your self-proclaimed "expansion and improvements" involved side-stepping and belittling the issue. For example, by pointing out that the 10% discount amounts to $2 US. It's the fact of the thing and not the small dollar value which matters. And I'd say not being able to PLAY games via a Steam, such as Dystopia, is also HIGHLY RELEVENT. You automatically assume that this is an HDR problem and Steam is blameless, when Steam has had numerous compatability issues in the past in which it WAS part of the problem. Again, I question your neutrality and your motives. So you are not in the industry, but do you have or have you ever had connections to it? Please tell :) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)11:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of listing the price, I think you were right to remove it. This is a different matter however; the fact that the mods/games were/are unplayable is in deed highly relavant but as I've said several times now not to Steam. Once the game has launched, Steam provides nothing more than a filesystem which is accessed when loading data from the hard drive to system memory and a local connection to the various VGUI tools such as the server browser. Neither of these make the game crash because it is overwriting the new built-in bloom shaders, nor drop framerates because the wrong version of DirectX is being forced, nor anything else, unless you would like to provide the example I asked for last time.
The closest I've come to industry connections is being asked about digital distribution by someone from PC Gamer UK. I trust you to be as honest as you can, have never made attacks on your character, and hope you will start returning those favours soon. --Tom Edwards18:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghost babe! Impressive article! It is excellent, and I think it will surely become FA right away! I also happen to know Leithp, although barely, and he surely struck me as a great editor. So, with your talent and his combined, it's no suprise to see such a great piece of work! I feel that a couple of minor tweakings should be made as to dodge the objections that had been addressed, but I'm not willing to touch the article unless you feel it's the right course of action. The "Assesment" section is the only section where I would recommend a small rephrasing; as it is now, it's basically the only thing people are opposing to. You can count on my support, that's out of the question, but that by itself won't help to get the article to FA imho. What do you think? I know that you have expressed that you don't want to touch that section, so I'm sure it's important to consult you and Leithp as you are the experts and the authors of this beautiful creation. I'm all ears :) Warm hugs! -- Shaurismile!23:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Shauri! Thanks for your support! It means a lot to me. I, of course, welcome any improvements you see fit. Please have a "Go" at it...even the dreded "Assessment" section, which seems the main contentious bone. This section was entirely my own as are all its flaws. Leithp has no blame in it and I'm sure he will welcome your help as well. I've considered shortening/reworking it a bit myself. This aside, most of the objections seem to be questions of style. We have the facts (IE the expert stuff) down, But YOU have style aplenty M'dear:). As I've said, there are places where it sounds too much like O'Connor's Resumee (Which is one reason I think the assessment section, stylistically counterbalances this). A few choice additions and edits by you could improve it. Again, I'm DELIGHTED you like like it and truly appreciate your advice and help. Warm (and Retaliatory) *HUGS* --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)11:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sup sup Ghost? I've just read the new wording of the "Assesment" section, and find it perfect. Just one last request, which I'm sure will demolish all remaining opposers: do you happen to have a source that could be assigned to that section, as a footnote, for example? When it comes to make any sort of valoration, nearly every user feels necessary to make sure that the opinion comes from an external source, instead of being an opinion of the writer. Personally, I was about to rewrite some of the afforementioned section, but as I just came in, I found your new rephrasing to be beautifully written, so my fumbling attemps will only ruin it... I find the rest of the article to be excellent, and I had a great time reading it. My support is on the way! Hugs, Shaurismile!20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My sweet Shauri, first... a big, warm HUG of THANKS for your support. Before you and Nufy8 chimed in the voting was 2-1 against. Now it is 3 to 2 in favor, with maybe one switching to support soon hopefully. Also glad you like the section rewrite. You are still more than welcome to "fumble" around around with it if you wish. The problem with that section is, I did not get it from any single reference, but from several. It really is MY apprasal of O'Connor based on all I've read. I felt the article needed a closing and I wanted to end it by praising Sir Richard, not simply burying him. So I start it with the basic, agreed upon and supported fact, that he was one of the finest generals of WWII. Then the paradox, that he's been largely forgotten by history, also true, not only of him but many others as well. In the rest of the section I try to answer why this is so, based on the facts of the article along with my own general (no pun intended) assessment. So I can't really point to any single source but to ALL of them. Moreover, some of my sources were his papers, some of which were not declassified till well after the war, others of a more personal nature. Still, they provided me with a great insight into the man, his life, charachter and how his mind worked. I know we are not supposed to show our subjects any undue favor and avoid the sins of POV and haigoraphy, but if we didnt have some interest in and affection for our subjects in the first place, there would be no real motive to write about them. And if at least some of this is not conveyed in our articles, few will care to read them either. *HUGS* and *THANKS* one again M'dear! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)15:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, my dear Ghost, I merely wanted to tell you that I'm pleased of the way things have turned out at the FA nomination of your Richard O'Connor article. No opposes and six supports will surely give you and Leithp another FA for your collection of achievements. Bravo! (And thank you so much for your beautiful, but undeserved comments about my writing abilities at the FAC page!) Hugs, Shaurismile!01:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, sweet Shauri, my comments are WELL DESERVED
and from the heart. You've helped show me that Wikipedia can be a place for serious research, seriously good writing and damn fine friends as well! And as I said, even if it doesn't get FA status, we have a better article to show for it. Still not too shabby for a first FA try, what ;) Collaborative HUGS to my fair Seniorita--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)01:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts about the comments on the assessment section? I agree with you that there should be some kind of summation at the end, to wrap the article up, but perhaps it could be edited to address the concerns? Currently it doesn't look likely it'll get FA status unless we can convince some of the nay-sayers. BTW I am heading off for a short holiday tomorrow so I won't be able to assist editing the article until Tuesday. Sorry about that. Leithp11:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will come down to that too I'm afraid. I agree with you, it must be rewritten. So I'll do the deed, it is my mess afterall, only fitting I should tidy it up. You have a great holiday, bro! And as they say in The Village, Be seeing you! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)11:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just came across a fairly useless piece of trivia; the Kirk also had Bernard Fergusson, one of Wingate's Chindit commanders, as a Lord High Commissioner. They seem to have had pretty good taste in commanders. Leithp13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, you can't go wrong by picking a WWII hero: "Do you have what it takes to be one of the FEW, THE PROUD, THE LORD HIGH COMMISIONERS OF THE KIRK?" Oh would you bring me back some Krill, M8...it goes well with beer:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)14:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment on the FAC was awfully ingratious, if not boorish, for being gratuitous. The process does not involve friends and enemies. These are people seeking to promote the very best that Wikipedia has to offer, and that includes NPOV and documentation of sources. Speaking of which, you really should check out Arthur Koestler, the man who wrote The Ghost in the Machine as a refutation of behaviorism. Geogre02:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you found my comments to be "boorish". I assure you this was not my intent. They were sincere. The article had been edited to the point where it really could not be improved any further, short of, as I said, removing the last section entirely. If you found the article so POV and undocumented, all you had to do was vote against it. But you supported it (thanks BTW). Now if you want to see an exaustively documented article, check out the one on Mark "DeepThroat" Felt, if you have'nt already. It is being criticized for being TOO well documented, which I believe is really an arguement in its favor. Yet some don't want to read an article where nearly every sentence ends in a footnote number. Pieces can indeed suffer from chronic footnoting, in fact I used to joke in college that some of those should be renamed IBID. But the Felt article works, IMO, because it weaves the documentation into the narrative. So it has my strong support. My point is- there must be compromise, especially in collaborative endevors such as the WIKI, including compromises on style and documentation. With the help of my peers, I made some compromises and the result was a much better article. But I also knew where to draw the line. Because with too much compromise one ends up with something which reads like it was written by a commitee ("Too many cooks..." etc). As for my reply to you on the 1911. I said I liked their STYLE of rhetoric, not that I necessarily AGREED with their views. Those are two different issues. Maybe I should have explicitly stated this later point. Your last comment is very interesting...Behaviorism? So are you saying I'm an advocate/practioner of it? Or that I'm some sort of "Pavlovian Pidgeon" or "Skinner's Dog"? Because if you are, I have a good mind to drool and drop a ping pong ball on your head:) Good day sir --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a real friend to archive my talk page soon. I want to put all this behind me & never look back. I now know who to stay clear of & what certain people think of me, such as I should grow up. Well when you live my life R.D.H, then we'll see who goes crazy over someone being stuck up. Maybe one day we'll be friends again, maybe never. It depends on how long it takes for me to clam down & for this whole thing to blow over. I didn't like the way you told me to grow up etc. I've left a summary on my user page, but I want the discussion left here, not on my user page. I DON'T want another message or post about this topic on my talk page after it has been archived, or I'll archive that as well. I'm starting a new page & don't want it ruined. Wearily... Spawn Man12:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you stalking me on wikipeda now? Fine, we can still be friends if you want, just no telling me to grow up or talking down to me. Cautiously, Spawn Man00:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I listed you as one of my best Wiki-friends, does that constitute "Stalking" to you? As for the rest, so long as you don't act up I won't talk down. Again, the decision is yours. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)00:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The stalking part was a joke, secondly when did I "act up"? I presume you've read my summary on my talk page, explaining the course of the argument & how I didn't start it.... Spawn Man01:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)P.S. saying, the decision is yours is talking down to me...[reply]
For your constant good mood that enlightens our days, I'm delighted to award you the Barnstar of Humour! We love you, Ghost! We reaaally love you! Shaurismile!
And allow me to add, congratulations on you first Featured Article! *applause* Let's celebrate! Come on everybody, party on, Leithp and Ghost pay for the drinks! Shaurismile!00:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
YEEAAAH! PAAAARTAAAAY! GREAT IDEA! Drinks are on me, Leithp will provide the Krill! It is entirely fitting and extreamely flattering that my first Wiki-Star would be given to me by my first and dearest, Wiki-Friend. You, my darling, sweet Shauri, have been nothing but kind and supportive of me since we first met. I shall try to be worthy of your award, although I know I won't always be successful in the attempt. But your encouragement, example and inspiration will make me try all the more, to at least seem to be in a cheery mood. Now back to our lil celebration...could you be persuaded to share some of your Bellydancing talents with us, hmmmm? ;)Your greatful Ghosty, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gladly join the party :-). When I arrived at the page to vote, it had already been moved to FA status. Congratulations!--Wiglaf11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well after a hard weekend of over-indulgence I've got a head that feels like it's been trampled on by a herd of rhinos, but my shattered shell of a body is considerably heartened to see the FA tag. Congrats to you for your admirable prose, judicious editing and convincing arguments. Unfortunately I failed to find any krill over the weekend. I did find Weissbier, though. Far, far, too much of it.... Leithp20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Laughs) Mmmm that liquid rhino that trampled you looks scrummy, though ;> When I want to get nicely toasted, I usually go in for a good dopplebock, stout or strong ale (As opposed to Ale the Strong ). Of course, this still means hangovers, but there's always asprin and "hair O the dog" ;>. Glad you got a head start on me with the celebrating. HI 5 and cheers M8!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)19:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad to help, even slightly, on an already fine article. Given my fascination with animals, matters military and well written, well researched material, my support is assured. In fact, I've fancied doing a series of article myself, on famous military animals.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)19:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you are currently leading the Hardest Questions In The World Section's score board with 3 correct answers. Spawn Man07:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Ghost! It's time for me to slip my own request into your pocket while you're not looking ;) I've just submitted (at last) the Texas Ranger Division for FAC. You'd do me a BIg favor if you drop by and add your thoughts. I've grown weary after the painstaking work, but I think it's ready to roll. What else can I ask but to have a FA writer to comment my own work? ;) Tight choking hugs, Shaurismile!18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, I also wanted to tell you that I removed the images of Terry and the newspaper scrap, only due to size and style purposes. I intend to use them in the upcoming article for the Terry's Texas Rangers, that I invite you to write together with me. If that's OK with you... is it, partner? Smooch! Shaurismile!19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Shauri! Of course I'll support your FA (As if I really had a choice here, huh Pardnah ;)! And I Understand about the pictures. They can clutter things up at times. Plus it seems the self-appointed image-copyright police have been in overdrive lately, so fewer images means fewer hassles with them. There is one word in the article that troubles me though ( sorry, sweets, I know it is nitpicking) and that is TERRITORY as in the "Vast Territory of Texas". Here in the U.S. that word is charged with technical (legal) and political meanings. An Organized territory is an area which for some reason is not yet ready to become a State within the Union but is still part of the U.S. Most states, including my own of Florida, were territories first before becoming states. This was not the case with Texas, though. Which as we know, and any proud Texan will not hesitate to remind us should we forget, was an independent Republic and voluntarily entered the Union as such. This is why I suggest replacing it with Frontier. Territory and Frontier are often used synonymously when referring to remote, lawless areas of the old West. And in most cases this is no big deal, since most teritories on the frontier were, in deed, territories. But, as in so many things, Texas has to be different :). Still, one word is certainly not going to cost you my support! One more thing, I know you're tired from all your hard work plus now my lil U.S. Political Science lecture (Be glad I did'nt go into Incorporated and Unincorporated territories ;), There's this quote about the Rangers... I forget who said it, think it was one of their early leaders, he wanted the Rangers to "ride like Mexican vaqueros, track like Comanche hunters, shoot like Davy Crockett's Tennesseans and fight like the very Devil himself." Wish I could recall who it was from, though. It would be something nice to include. Nice but not essential. I'm on my way to lay down some good words for you babe;> I look forward to our further collaborations on Terry's Rangers and Capt. Mc Nelly. Texas-Sized Smoochies from your Ghosty --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)19:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heeey my dear, dear Ghost! First of all, a wholehearted Yeeeee-haaah! and thanks so much for the beautiful prize! I'll always wear it with pride on my chest... err I mean User Page! Keep'em coming - me'n my partner here will show ya'll a couple o'nice tricks!
Secondly, yet more thanks for your lovely words and kind support. They surely meant a huge, wide, big, lotta to me. Your concerns are also extremely useful, and be more than sure that I'll address them right away. The term precision that you point out was unknown to me, hence my original choice, which will be reworded immediately. Regarding the quote.... I've broken my horns against the web to locate its author, but although I keep finding it, it is always unsigned :( damn! I would have loved to quote it at the article, but that seems impossible without a solid reference.
I'm having this thought, which I want your input in: to address the lenght objection, should I remove the "High profile busts" section entirely and move its contents to the three outlaws' articles? That would place its lenght in 38k, and with some minor summaries here and there, it could solve said objections. I feel that, if a part of the article is to suffer a bit, I prefer the anecdotes to rather than the body of the "history" section. What'cha think, Cap? I promise you, Terry's guys are next in line! (puts her Colt .45 in the holster to hug you) Huggggzzzzz till you cough! Shaurismile!21:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, My Sweet, Sexy Miz Shauri, I've had same problem with that quote (IE finding a proper attribution), but I have a cunning plan M'lady, to work it into the article anyhow. Begin the Rangers' mythos section thusly: <From its earliest days, the Rangers were surrounded with the mystique of the Old West. It was said "they could ride like Mexican vaqueros, track like Comanche hunters, shoot like Davy Crockett's Tennesseans and fight like the very Devil himself." 1 You could further attribute it to "They Rode for the Lone Star" by Thomas W. Knowles <19>. Which would also give you one more reference to boot hill;>
Now about your "High Profile busts" mmmmm. Upon close examination, I think they are FINE as is. Removing that section would not only reduce the aticles length but its comprehensiveness, effectiveness and appeal as well. As I said in my support statement, those who complain about length probably havent really read it. Let them eat Ritalin and buy themselves faster modems. Besides, as someone else pointed out, there have been much longer FAs in the past. SHJ, for instance, is longer, right? So far we are winning. The voting is 7-4 in favor. The momentum has has turned in the Rangers' favor too. I expect it to be 8-4 or 8-3 soon. As for "show ya'll a couple o'nice tricks" I'm always anxious to learn... GIDDYUP!;))) Big ol "that's a gun in my holster but yes I'm glad to see ya" Hugggzz --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My little beloved Ghost, for once allow me to be serious, and tell you how much grateful I am to you. You are a guiding light with your humour, your affection and your knowledge. It is largely due to your support that I decided to stick to my guns through my moments of weakness in the FAC, when I was thinking about crippling the article to satisfy others against my own beliefs. This achievement is, in no small measure, a merit of yours, with your support, contributions and convincing arguments at its nomination. For that, my words fall short to express you my gratitude. But above everything else, thank you for your friendship, my dear Ghost. That is an invaluable gift, and one I hope to keep forever.
I'm sorry for being so emotional, but you deserve this gratitude and more. I promise another less intense and more cheerful message as soon as I get home. Thank you! my dear Ghosty. Shaurismile!14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(BLUSH)Thanks yet again for your kind, warm words of friendship and praise my lady! But it helped, and YOU helped, that I'd just been through a similar situation with my FA. The key is to bend but not break. There comes a point in any work where you really cant change it anymore without also changing what makes it worthy. That is when you have to make a stand. Especially if it is against critcism for no good reason, such as you faced. Often times this is criticism just for the sake of being critical and not constructive. Unfortunately, there seems to be too many who practice this pointless, destructive criticism. It is my pleasure to stand up to them and to stand up for you. But please keep flattering me darlin'! If I were a cat I'd be PUURRRRING now;>. Your toasty ghosty,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)08:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi R.D.H. If English isn't your native toungue, what is? You don't seem to have a native language on your user page babel thumb.... Spawn Man04:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a joke SM..as is the 1337 part on my Babel's bottom. English is in fact mi lingua maternal. But the middle part is true...Fr2 and Es1 are all that remain of my once proud Franco-Spanish abilities. Still, could be worse..some of my former classmates can only manage Bon Jour! and Commo esta Usted. :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)19:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you are now 3rd on the scoreboard, with 4 correct answers. You are 2 points away from the scoreboard leader. Spawn Man21:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that's none too shabby considering I'm not really playing at the moment. Here's a brain teaser for you my Quiz master friend- Once on the road to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives. And each wife had seven sacks and in each sack were seven cats and every cat had seven kits. Kits and cats and sacks and wives, so tell me now...how many were going to St. Ives? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)08:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Congrats, you are now 1st on the scoreboard, with 1 correct answers :> Always liked that one. It is really a logic/comprehension puzzle disguised as a computational problem. And a pretty neat story/poem too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I recall discussing a possible addition of wars to the scope of WikiProject Battles with you, so I thought you would be the perfect person to ask: if you have some time, could you please take a look at the discussion on the Wars project in regard to what the relationship between WikiProject Battles and WikiProject Wars should be. It's pretty much a back and forth conversation between myself and The Minister of War, so some outside comments would be really helpful :-) Kirill Lokshin13:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the comments! The merger idea seems to be picking up support, so I've tried to summarize the proposal here. Any additional comments would be very welcome. Kirill Lokshin13:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find your last line quite funny. Reminds me of Darth Vader a bit... "Spawn Man, *Metalic Breaths*, Join the dark side, *More deep metalic breaths*."..... Spawn Man09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC) BTW: Check out my new article, ()()()(). Click on the cool external link I found, it's kinda funky.'[reply]
Hey; you said the article on the Battle of Vaslui needed improvement. Since then, I've added photos, references, and expanded the article. Do you have any suggestions on what can be done to improve the article? Can you improve it? What needs to be done to make the article up to standard for Featured article? I doubt I can fix a map, but I don't think we really need one. Or do we? Thanks. --Anittas18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have significantly improved the article. I can help with some wording/narrative polishes if you wish. This could further improve the presentation, which is vital to get an article to FA status. Towards this end, a map would be very helpful. Not absolutely needed, but it could make a difference. Nothing fancy, just one which shows where the battle took place. Readers need some sort of geographical orientation to help them understand and become involved with the battle. You could also add one of those wonderful, dramatic, idealized paintings of the battle (which were usually made years if not centuries after the event) if you can find one. I like what you have done so far, it is definately headed in the right direction. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)08:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your support on my RfA, I really appreciate it. And I will really have to steal that Public Service Announcement from your page, it's brilliant! the wub "?!"14:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. I'm sure you'll make a fine addition to the admin cabal. And I really don't mind you stealing my monkey, especially since you gave due credit. There's no telling, however, if the monkey will mind :> --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)07:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've put Richard O'Connor down in WP:TFA, hope you don't mind. You can see the blurb on the talk page, it's basically just the intro paragraphs with the red links removed. Hopefully it'll turn up on the front page soon. Leithp18:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!Not only do I not mind, but I owe you THANKS again Bro. I was unaware of this step in the "getting an FA to the main page" process. I thought some shadowy committee or mysterious member of the cabal chose which FAs would go up on what days. Of course, once it goes up, we will have to protect it for a while from vandals, crap edits and geeks bearing well-meaning but wrong-headed "improvements". And when it does go up I'll Insist you share the credit too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)08:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was about time Richard had his day in the sun. What happens from here is a mystery to me though, I wasn't able to find out how they decide which of the prospective candidates gets put forward. I suspect that you may be right and a shadowy cabal does decide it. Isn't it always the case? All hail the secret rulers of the world wiki. Leithp09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd ask you as you're listed on the war portal as having an interest in WW2. There seems to be a bit of problem in Wikipedia over the spelling of the name of the last leader of the Hitler Youth. According to my copy William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich it is spelt Artur Axmann. However the original article in Wikipedia was at [[Arthur Axmann]. On Google, there are 1,090 hits for "Artur Axmann" but only 774 for "Arthur Axmann". So it seems to me that "Artur Axmann" is the correct spelling... but I've just noticed that the four other Wikipedias with articles on him, including the German one, all spell it as "Arthur Axmann". Do you have any knowledge either way? Thanks. chowells22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chowells!
On this matter I side with Shirer and Google. Artur should be the correct German spelling. Odd, though, that the German Wiki would use the English spelling while the en.wiki would use the German. Just one of those oddities of the Wikiverse I suppose. Oh do you or anyother helpful, enlightened soul reading this, happen to know anything about Theodore (Theodor) von Hippel, the brains behind the Brandenburgers? I dont even have his DOB/DOD. Was he another victim in the purge of the Abwehr following the July Plot? Did he participate in any of the Brandenburgers' wartime operations? So far I've turned up Nada. I've asked Ansbachdragoner for assistance, but sadly he seems to have been driven away by harassment from Molobo and the Image:copyrightpolice.jpg. Any info or ideas would be appreciated, Thanks --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Actually he was in the English Wikipedia as Arthur Axmann until yesterday when I moved him to Artur... though when I noticed that all the 'pedia's had him as "Arthur" that made me suspicous and wondered if I'd made a nasty mistake :) Though Shirer and google hopefully suggest I'm right. Might move the articles in other 'pedia's over to the correct spelling if I'm so inclined. I guess it's possible the other language 'pedia's were all translated from the English entry and no one noticed the error up to now. I'll see if I can find out anything on Von Hippel shortly. chowells18:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. No, I don't seen to be able to find out much about him yet. I might be able to have a poke around in my uni library tomorrow. Cheers :) chowells18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you made the right call on Herr Axmann's first name. And you are probably right about the German article being im"port"ed over as well. It seems many of the Euro-Wikis are significantly smaller than the English one. It would be the easiest way for them to build up. Which is fine, as long as the articles are decent and the translations faithful. Thanks for the help with Hippel! I managed to find a little bit more info on him, together with a lot more about the Brandenburgs. I've managed to expand the article into a "super-semi-bio" stub. It is now an reasonably good, factual read albeit an incomplete one. Cheers M8:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)04:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd finally gotten around to doing some serious copyediting of the text over the past few days; I've now nominated the result on FAC. Comments would be quite welcome :-) Kirill Lokshin06:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see...like the changes you've made and the map you added is especially nice. Don't think lack of pictures will be a serious problem, and if it is more can always be added. It goes without saying you have my vote :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)08:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merci beaucoup for the comments! Nobody seems to have complained about the pictures yet, so perhaps it's not as great a problem as I had imagined; if it becomes one, I can always add some more portraits ;-) Kirill Lokshin12:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at this. Our jokes yesterday about the cabal appear to have been uncannily accurate. If there wasn't one before, there soon will be. Leithp09:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been shouted down, thankfully. I was quite philosophical about it all until he accused me of wanting to make wikipedia a "large sandbox" where I could "practice my writing skills". That really hacked me off. I've put a fair bit of time into Wikipedia and I don't expect any direct reward, but equally I don't expect to have my contributions denigrated like that. All that talk of "finished articles" was complete nonsense as well. Leithp08:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes those comments ticked me off as well. I wanted to fire a broadside at him, but then I saw how unpopular his idea had become and decided that would be bad form and not help our cause. Besides, "Do Not feed the Trolls" ;>. So one nonesense idea down..10,000 more to go. I was (half)joking with Nufy8 about sensing distubance in the WikiForce. But there really seems to be a growing schism between those who want to keep Wikipedia, free, open and uncommercial and those who want to turn it into just another Encarta or something along the lines of this ilk. Instead of "The free encycleopedia anyone can edit", they would have it become "the carefully controlled, policed and regulated encycleopedia only Philidelphia Lawyers who are thoroughly familiar with all copyright laws and Wiki-policies can edit". So it is up to us to fight it from coming to this, even if it comes down to creating our own free, open Webpedia some day. This is'nt simply the democratization of information we are fighting for, but the democratization of knowledge. Well enough preaching to the choir...for now..cheers bro, hope youre having a great weekend.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell(talk) (bounties)13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Greets Quadell! The idea of gambling with other peoples' money appeals to me (plus Helping the Wiki=good :) and I find this far less annoying than certain other fundraising techniques (Such as PBS Pledge Drives). Kudos for a very imaginative and potentially helpful endevor. I do have certain reservations, however. The FAC process seems to be getting a bit "political" of late. Throwing money into it will only make it moreso. As well as the fact it might distort the voting on certain articles, so the more popular, but not necessarily better, ones will win. It could, thus, help Wiki finacially but harm it in other ways. I've seem far too many great websites and online communities destroyed by the deadly duo of politics and money (Not to mention the U.S. electorial "Shitstem"). But I will certainly keep an open mind and consider laying a little something something on the line next time I submit an FAC :> Thanks--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)09:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dude! You and Leithp's Richard O'Connor article was excellent. Now I hope this won't be considered "cheeky", but you wouldn't to be interested in expanding Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig's article, would you? Right now, it's about the size you'd expect of an obscure cat, which is insufficient for someone who had (and has) such a prominent and controversial role in British history. I've nearly completed early and past life sections, but World War I is going to be quite a daunting task. It will need the magic touch ;-) Anyway, take care. SoLando (Talk) 02:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey M8! Glad you stopped by! No, I don't find your suggestion "cheeky" at all. I'm rather flattered by it. I must confess, though, I'm not a big fan of WWI in general or General/Field Marshall Haig in particular. His article is far larger than Sir Richard's when I found it. Haig's even has a picture, by god! I think he deserves no more mention than an obscure cat, who would probably have made a better army commander too. There's your cheeky! All those jokes about Haig on Blackadder Goes Forth are dead on (no pun intended) pretty much as far as I'm concerned. Though I suspect Leithp might be more generous towards Sir Douglas. Now the WWI commander whose article I'd really like to expand if I could is Paul Erich von Lettow-Vorbeck. Now THERE is a story! I've already started Biogs of his subordinate and disciple Theodore von Hippel and a man who was, in a way, his Naval counterpart Karl von Müller (Which was one of my first full length articles, and served as a sort of "rehearsal" for O'Connor later). Then there's THIS lil project WE are working on :>. But if Leithp is game, I think I could be talked into doing some minor expansions on it. What sayeth thou bro? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)10:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't know an awful lot about the Great War, and less about the butcher Earl Haig. And no, contrary to past form, I'm not going to launch into a defence of his, and British, generalship. Sorry I can't help much, but I'll have a look at the page and see if there is any copyediting or images to add to help improve it. Leithp10:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Haig does have a habit of provoking unflattering descriptions - here's me thinking everyone loved Haig (the whiskey, that is ;-)). I just feel it needs expanding. I'm thinking along the lines of having a "Controversy" section, with the pro and anti weighed up, with perhaps a conclusion (which may stir up, oddly enough, controversy :-(). Haig seems to have been a good administrator, but many reasons handicapped him as an operational commander; this included the fact that he seemed to still be in love with the thought of the cavalry still riding (on horses!) to the rescue of a 20th Century army; he didn't have a grasp of the rapid advance in technology, which was so costly to the British Army. He also seems to have been placed at a disadvantage by the fact he had incurred the wrath of the top dog (Lloyd George) at home (something a commander doesn't want to do; things like that always descend into pettiness, no matter how many lives are cost by it). Leithp, any editing you can do to the article would be most welcome - you're a really great editor!
R.D.H., I'd definitely encourage you to get von Lettow-Vorbeck's article to FA standard - the man is a legend (quite literally, as his renown is akin to that of Hercules). I'd be willing to help; I read up a bit about him while writing (a really bad) article on a British Indian Army regiment. By the way, I tried to find Theodore von Hippel's birth date and the like, but to no avail. Very odd, that. The Waterloo order of battle - nearly forgot ;-). That's one article I won't forgot, though (unlike certain articles like the Battle of Tsingtao :-D). Speaking of officers with (good) reputations, you wouldn't happen to know anything about the Parachute Regiment in World War II, would you? I would love to get Richard Geoffrey Pine-Coffin upto FA standard one day; he seems to have been a very capable, compassionate CO, who knew exactly what his soldiers were feeling/needed (a quality all commanding officers need - to be in touch with their troops :-)). Anyway dudes, thanks for the response :-) SoLando (Talk) 11:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So...We meet again SoLando :> Thx for the help on Von Hippel! Yes, it is odd how even basic information on him is so hard to come by. I've found far more extensive bios on some much less (in)famous and junior German officers without any problems. It does inspire some speculation, doesnt it...given the fact he was a senior Abwehr officer with strong ties to Carnaris. Not to mention the highly secretive nature of the Bradenburgers themselves and the post-war activities of some of their members. All I've managed to find so far are brief, anecdotal mentions of Hipple. My Spidey-sense is starting to think his records were either trashed or snagged by someone (MI-5? OSS? NKVD?). Anyhoe, it's the least I can do but help you out a bit on Butch..err I mean FM Haig :>. As for a "controversy" section, I proposed the same thing for Erwin Rommel, and either Leithp or Shauri, endorsed the idea but warned it could get out of hand. I'm inclined to agree. We must be careful in adding such sections, that they don't grow until they become the main focus of the article and a highly POV one at that. Those other two articles you mentioned, I'm much more enthusiatic about though. Anyone named Pine-Coffin, and a PARATROOPER no less, deserves a quality biog. Especially given his role at Pegasus Bridge. Looks like you've found another unsung hero whose praises must be sung (MIMIMIMI). Take care my friend,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)14:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia can be a small world, especially on talk pages :-D I suppose von Hippel would've probably been born around......1893-ish. I'm amazed there aren't any conspiracy theories on the guy (there are none....right?). I'm in a similar situation; I've been trying to write bios on every CO in the 6th Airborne Division, but can't find anything on most of them (admittedly, they are somewhat "obscure" :-(). So was Hippel killed in the war, or is his fate unknown? I'm sure none of the secret services would have minded acquiring such documents; the whole "love-in" between the Allies was put on hold after each nation entered Germany, and desperately sought to seize sensitive (and valuable) documents, material, people ,etc...doncha just love it? ;-) Yes, I'm more inclined now to stick with Leithp's "reputation" section, which will hopefully keep it balanced. The Haig article looks better, but I'm not going to be content until it's about 25kb :-D By the way, can you imagine jumping out of an aeroplane, hoping upon hope that your parachute works, while your commanding officer is named Pine-Coffin?! Thank god he was an able commander :-) Take care, dude. SoLando (Boo ) 15:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome, my friend and most deserving as well. As for concerns, you'll have to look elsewhere, if anywhere for those:> You managed to get dozens of support votes and no opposition...no small accomplishment that, in these times of increasingly contentious Rfa's. Congrads!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)13:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, that was a nice ray of sunshine on that disastrous RfA page. I needed it. I think they are going to do something about the process now. Tony20:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony!
No problem, I was GLAD to do it. Someone had to stand up and denounce that farce for what it was. A Kangaroo court has more decorum!!! I really hope they actually do something about the ordeal process. They had better, or Wikipedia will continue to hemmorage from self-inflicted wounds by losing and alienating fine editors/contributors such as you. As I said, you have my respect, Sir!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)14:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RDHGITM for the welcome. No we are not twins, just friends. The code is quite easy to understand once you know it. Thanks greatly. Groogan to yooblago!!! Hahaha.... Market Man06:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
110 K? is THAT all...meh! its not even a mere meg yet ;> As usual, Kirill, you make a constructive and helpful suggestion. Indeed the time to archive grows neigh. It will be my first archive here. Will it hurt much? ;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)14:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. I enjoy reading your contributions to Wikipedia and I look forward to seeing you around. Best, Johntex\talk00:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I popped round just the other day. Sorry I've not been around more the last couple days. All this RfA reform stuff has been dragging me away from working on articles and hanging with my friends (hello:) which I'd much rather be doing than argueing with a bunch of wiki politicians and bureaucrats. Le sigh...--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had an idea regarding the RFA process - I bet however, that it's either been proposed already or that it will be deemed an unnecessary new tier. Basically my idea would be for the RFA to have its own optional "peer review", in much the same way as articles. At the review, issues could be raised and resolved with the prospective admin - one obvious reason why some RFAs have been descending into an unpleasant shambles - and perhaps an indication of their chances (or whether they are ready) could be given. I know this idea probably seems unnecessary, what with there being RFCs and the like, but it's a thought. :-) Take care (please be gentle when you demolish my suggestion ;-)). SoLando (Talk) 09:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish?! The hell I will!:> How could I demolish such a GREAT suggestion?! RFCs usually involve edit wars, personal pissing contests and such, what you propose would exclusively deal with admin candidate issues. If nominators and nominees use your "peer review", then they are far less likely to get ambushed or piled on...the two worst aspects of Rfa. Please bring it up HERE or I will if you wish, but I'd much rather you do it since it is your idea afterall, plus you don't yet have as much political baggage as I've managed to accumulate:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)18:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised you never knocked down the idea. Thanks! I suppose it's inevitable that Wikipedians become entangled in the political machinations that go on in the background (I've consciously avoided it for most of my time with Wikipedia, but I still have sympathy for you :-)). I've placed it under the Tony1 section, since your (excellent) ideas inspired me. It's probably going to be lambasted as redundant, but ah well. Feel free to expand on the proposal :-) I probably won't have time to devote my time to defending the idea right now, as I have to replace every template made for British Army regiments with a new infobox i've just made, then list the templates for deletion *sigh*. Take care. SoLando (Talk) 19:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should'nt be surprised, it is a fine idea. And I will defend it, though I'm growing weary of this whole Rfa reform mess. No one seems to recognize the the system is breaking down and the time to fix it is NOW before it breaks completely. It may have worked fine in the past, when Wikipedia was small, but now that it has grown so and is fast growing things will only get worse. That's the trouble with trying to reform ANYTHING...the powers-that-be refuse to recognize the problem until it is too late and peaceful, incremental reform is no longer a viable option. LE SIGH...I'd be a much happier frood if I stayed the hell away from politics. If I'm to be a Wikipedian for the long haul, I'm afraid that's what it is gonna come down to. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)16:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out that Monty suggested that O'Connor succeed him as 8th Army commander, they apparently got on well until Monty sacked him in '44. "Not ruthless enough with his American subordinates", apparently (something Monty could never be accused of). BTW, I took some of your comments about Horrocks a while back to heart. Since he was in the top ten generals of the war (IMHO obviously), it can only be the fault of my Wiki page about him that you didn't think he was a "blitzer". Just reading his autobiography at the moment, having read a biography last week, so I'll be improving the page over the next week or two (or three, or four). Leithp22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Monty was a strange little man. Underneath the flamboyance, pomposity and abrasiveness was a very complex and troubled soul. I've given up trying to understand him. He is just not interesting enough to intrigue me. I'm glad and greatful you found and added that, though. It says more for O'Connor that he and Monty got along despite him being passed over, pushed aside and eventually sacked by him, than it does for the Victor of El Alamein. As for Horrocks, I really did'nt mean to demean him and I apologize again to you both. But if I inspired you, in some way, to give him a much more extensive biography here (Which he deserves) then my unintended slight was well worth it ;> If you want, I'll post more of my thoughts on him over on your talk page...after I archive this here mutha of mine:> Cheers bro,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your stylish comment on my talk page during that guy's & my argument. Helped a bit, I hope. Spawn Man02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. You should really ask Kirill Lokshin to archive your talk page, it's out of control!! It's Alive I Tell You, Alive!!!!!![reply]
No problemo, stranger ;> Glad to help out. If he continues to harass you I've got more ready...and if that does'nt work I'll bring in the Grande Battierie:> Yes, my lively talk page seems to have taken on a life of its own. I'll have to put it "down" soon..let me try and figure out how to do the deed first, before bothering Kirill. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)17:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shauri! Yes babe? 00:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
smile! 23:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
smile! 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
smile! 21:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
