User talk:Vanished user lkweroiji

Hello, Vanished user lkweroiji, 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.

Thanks for your edits relating to Martin Luther. You seem to be getting in on the processes here already, voting in AfDs and the like. I hope you enjoy editing at Wikipedia.

Again, welcome! Blarneytherinosaur 06:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thanks for the edit on the Luther page. There is much more to the story of Luther and the book of James as well. For example, Luther's attitude to towards the epistle changed over time. Also, his main reason for a low opinion of James is the fact that many early church fathers did not accept it as scripture. I'd welcome having you expand this addition. --CTSWyneken 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might get around to it this weekend. If you the statement as is lacks justification, you can remove it until then. Duckdid 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The American Revolutionary War involved far more than just the North American theater. The French were fighting the British in European waters, the West Indies, and in India. These campaigns were crucial to tying down British strategic strength that otherwise would have been directed at the colonies. Furthermore, the Yorktown campaign would have never succeeded if the French were not there. Footnote #3 explains it all: "French intervention won the war." I apologize if the statement seems biased. Do you have any suggestions on changing it?UberCryxic 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It now reads "helped inflict"...there is, however, little doubt that France was decisive in the victory.UberCryxic 06:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I reject the "liberal bias" notion. I have been studying French military history for years, so my comments in the article have little to do with political or ideological leanings. Furthermore, the article went through an extensive review process and was very warmly received with almost no mentions of bias. The problem here is that popular conceptions have overridden reality. English authors and historians who chose to memorialize the victories of their armies would emphasize this or that, in this case the longbow, but modern historical research has revealed that English victories depended more on, as the article says, the French gaffing (this is sourced btw; are you looking at the footnotes? They explain a lot of things). Look at Agincourt: a fine tactical plan by the French, but no room in which to implement it, hence the appalling slaughter. American aid was mentioned when appropriate. If it's the "to a lesser extent" about World War I that bothers you, consider this: American forces never held more than 10% of the Allied line during active operations and in October 1918 the US had 500,000 active troops on the frontline, contrasted with 4 million for the British and 7 million for the French. What do you want me to say? "America came and kicked ass???" I mean they did, America did come and kick ass, but not as much as the French and the British. Look at the gains in the final Allied offensives: the British captured 188,700 prisoners and 2,840 guns, the French captured 139,000 prisoners and 1,880 guns, and the Americans captured 43,300 prisoners and 1,421 guns. What is your complaint again? The numbers are there; it's just how you interpret them I suppose. France-Mexico? What about them? That part talks about the French Foreign Legion, so clearly I had to talk about Cameron. That's almost a religious day in French military history, and especially in the Legion's history. As the article says, the Mexicans themselves were impressed. I don't think there's bias at all, and I'm not alone. I encourage you to look at the footnotes before making these allegations.UberCryxic 06:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Duckdid! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 213 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Jason Capel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]