User talk:Breeze009

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Breeze009! Thank you for your contributions. I am David1217 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! David 1217 ^{What I've done} 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze009, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Breeze009! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there!

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed III

I am curious what sources actually made the claims you added to the page for Assassin's Creed, and also would like to comment on a few of the claims made. First, you claimed, and I quote, "presumably a 'full-blooded' Indian is too 'foreign' or exotic for white audiences and less apt to invoke sympathy". Ubisoft have, in fact, explained their reasoning on the reason Connor is half-native, half-colonist. It's to make him an outsider to both groups, someone who can't quite fit in. You may also be quite interested to know that they, in 2011, hired a Mohawk cultural consultant to be on hand at all times, since they had run into problems with research they had conduced without aid. This article helped me to find these facts out: http://techland.time.com/2012/09/05/assassins-creed-iiis-connor-how-ubisoft-avoided-stereotypes-and-made-a-real-character/. Nixeu (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gorham's Rangers

Wonderful job on Gorham Rangers article. Great list re: natives. Very generous. I think I'm about to read the article you just published on Gorham's Rangers - I'm looking forward to it. Do you know if there are any contemporaneous images of these rangers?--Hantsheroes (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Gorham (military officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Winslow (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gorham's Rangers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danks' Rangers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gorham's Rangers

Hi, I see you undid the minor addition of Burke's Rangers to the article, leaving in Rogers' Rangers. Burke's Rangers were created nearby in Massachusetts by Governor Wm. Shirley just a bit after he commisioned Gorham. It seems like a positive, if minor, addition. Thoughts? Capitalismojo (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate addition might be Dank's Rangers. Either addition would bring good links and a deeper understanding to the article, I believe. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitalismojo. I liked the addition, however moved it to a footnote, not deleted it, so check again. But there is no direct link between Gorham's company and Burke's provincial unit--William Shirley commissioned units to garrison the frontier regularly, that was part of his job. But Burke's was not a permanent ranger force, rather provincials earmarked for frontier service, there was a difference. I created a lengthy footnote about how, by the 1750s, provincial ranger units differed from the permanent British ranger corps, like Rogers' and Gorham's. There were other units like Burke's, so I listed some of them to give similar context, although there is so little written on them (beside in my forthcoming book) that they don't have their own Wikipedia pages (yet).

Thanks for responding. Your information was truly interesting. I am sorry, I did undo it back to your original page because the ref wasn't in keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. See WP:MOS I also added a tag to the page that should allow other editors to come and assist adding citations that would be helpful in improving the article. If you could add standard inline citations that would be great. It's a good article and will improve with additional citations and work. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalismojo: I went through the WP: MOS and could not find specifics on footnotes. Which section is that in? Are 'explanatory' footnotes not allowed?

What we are looking for in the references are in-line citations that point to reliable sources. WP:REF Ususally those are online, alternatively the offline book is properly cited. I've seen (very occasionally) some minor explication of the reference. Avoid Clutter Longer bits of explanation usually are added to the article itself. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of Pequawket (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ranger

Gorham's Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Halifax

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burke's Rangers

I was wondering if you had a source for the info suggestion that Burke's Rangers weren't "rangers" but were provincial garrison troops? The reason I ask is I have several sources that suggest otherwise. Here's one,

Massachusetts had learned that her best policy was to raise the usual forces at the commencement of the year, without waiting the requests of defenceless towns and almost abandoned garrisons. Such was the course she pursued in the year 1757. In addition to the colony's garrison troops, "one hundred men were employed on the eastern frontier, and forty-five under a captain and lieutenant, on the west side of Connecticut river, to Range the woods north of Falltown." The latter company — known as Rangers — under the command of Capt. John Burk,† were stationed at Hinsdale's fort, on the east bank of the Connecticut. During the month of March they made frequent marches through the neighboring country for the purpose of discovering concealed Indians. Their course was sometimes along the main stream of West river, and again by its south or west branches. Not unfrequently they ascended to the top of West river mountain, there to watch for the smoke of the enemy's camp fires. Orders were given to the Commissary General to provide these scouting parties with snow-shoes and moccasins, the better to enable them to perform their toilsome labor.

History of Eastern Vermont, From its Earliest Settlement to the Close of the Eighteenth Century' Benjamin H. Hall: New York : Appleton 1858 page 85

7/14/2013: Breeze009 wrote - Okay. Time for the History Lesson. By the way I am a professional historian--an Early Americanist by trade, and have published on the topic of colonial rangers and the French Indian War--in short, I am no mere 'history buff' so hold on. First off, not related to the above but Fort Hinsdale is in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts, which is where you had it located in your article. Secondly, Massachusetts had been staffing garrisons on the Connecticut as far north as what is today Brattleboro, VT, they had 7 at one point, as far back as the early 1720s. Provincial troops--all provincial troops--were recruited for very short deployments, usually between 3 and 9 months. They were not a permanent force. After they were disbanded at the end of the deployment, companies were raised fresh again for the next deployment. Some men reenlisted, but not all. They were essentially brand new companies each time they were formed and were usually raised on the county level not the town level. They were the colony's troops, not part of the British army. Massachusetts always staffed these forts, even the ones in New Hampshire and what is today Vermont, even during peacetime. They also sent patrols of men as early as Queen Anne's War to patrol the region--as it was the main thoroughfare that Indian raiding parties took. Some were called snowshoe men, others rangers, some just patrols. Ranger in a strict sense means one who ranges the woods. Provincial rangers units, distinct from provincial infantry units, in King George's War and the French and Indian Wars--those that guarded frontier regions, were a dime a dozen. They raised multiple of them, and raised them each year. I know, as I've seen the original muster rolls in the state archives--there are 100s of them (total), and I have read them and taken extensive notes and photographs of them. I even have a digital photo of the one from Burke's Company from 1756-7, the company you are interested in. Its actually in the American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Mass., along with a lot of Burke's military papers. These groups are very interesting, but my argument is they were not professional ranger units in the sense that Gorham's, Danks', Rogers', Stark's, or Hazen's were. These professional companies were all part of the British army, and were permanent units where men enlisted for 3, 4, or 7 years, or some even life--as was common practice in the British Army. Yes these frontier provincial companies were rangers, and they are very, very interesting. But they generally weren't offensive troops--carrying out major operations, like those in the British Army ranger corps. Yes, they saw action, yes they patrolled the forests along the Connecticut to ensure the security of frontier settlements and posts. But they were actually far from the main theater of war in 1756-7. Sure there were some raids along the Connecticut, hence the forts and ranger patrols, but most of the fighting and major military operations of those years were between 128 and 146 miles away--around Lake George in New York, or further, in Nova Scotia. That's were the British Army ranger corps were deployed. Also, the 1756-7 roll of Burke's company has an interesting note at the bottom. Here's a sentence from my forthcoming book about it and the source it is taken from: "At Albany in early 1757, General William Shirley culled four Stockbridge Mohicans who had decided to enlist on their own, Jehoiakim Shoanuma, William Notonkshum, Jeremiah Maugauwaumpoo, and Abraham Hunkamug, from Captain John Burke’s thirty-six man provincial company. Shirley reassigned them to a ranger company." Source: “Muster Roll of the Company . . . of John Burk, Capt.,” 23 February 1757, French and Indian War Collection, AAS. Burke was listed as being from Bernardstown, Mass., but men from his company were from various towns in the central part of the state, mostly. Burke's notation, in his own hand I might add, says: "These 4 Indians taken into King’s Service at Albany pr. General Shirley"--meaning they were transferred into a British Army ranger company--in Rogers' corps. Shirley and others so valued the Stockbridge, that he did not want their potential 'wasted' in a defensive role in a provincial unit--and had them transferred to the regular army's ranger corps--the offensive, front-line, force. Again, Burke was a fine provincial commander--but this is what I meant by there really wasn't much connection to the provincial 'ranger' units and the British army ranger corps, sure they were all rangers, but raised and used quite differently. And while Burke came from Bernardstown, apparently the men in his company came from far and wide, include one probable Natick 'Praying Indian' and a possible slave identified as "Caesar Negro". Also many came from pretty far east in the state, in long-settled areas--far from frontier Bernardstown--towns like Natick, Groton, Bridgewater, and even Braintree (just south of Boston). And while Wait was recruited from Burke's company after departing the provincial service when he enlisted in the ranger corps, it was a totally different branch of the service. Rogers recruited qualified people from wherever he found them--Indians, Irish, English, Scots, African-Americans, men from Mass., N.H., Conn., New York, New Jersey. There were Palatine Germans, Swedes and even Portuguese in the rangers! Obviously, Wait was well qualified and an excellent officer--Burke taught him well. Although as Captain of his own British Army ranger unit in 1760 (again from the original muster rolls at the Huntington Library in Pasadena, California) he did all of his recruiting in Connecticut--and had 13 Mohegans from Connecticut in his unit--suggesting that's where he was from. None of Wait's men was from Bernardstown. And I hate to burst your bubble, but despite what you wrote on the Burke's Rangers Wikipedia page, neither Major Burke nor his company was not adopted into Rogers' Corps. John Burke is not listed in the literature as an officer in the British Army ranger corps. Not to say Burke was a nobody and not important. Far from it. He was promoted to Colonel and helped organize, equip, and train provincial troops raised in central Mass. for the rest of the war. I am not sure what his title was but based on his own writings he was a combination of quartermaster general and muster-master--the most important officer in central Mass. He was really high up in the provincial military establishment. He became a really important guy after commanding the rangers. Again, a lot of his papers are in the American Antiquarian Society, which is where I am getting this (I had a two month research fellowship at the AAS in 2008-9)--I trust them more than what other historians have written about him--I always go to the source! BTW-The company he was in the 1740s, a provincial ranger force, saw tons of action! The records are quite sketchy on them, but what little I have seen shows that after Louisburg, that's were all the action was in the 1740s--over in what is today western Mass. and Burke was in the thick of it. He's a very interesting figure.

Yes, I agree. I have found beginning with my work on Johnathan Carver's article that much of the muster rolls, papers and ephemera of the era are, surprisingly, available online now.

Burke's company was scouting and patrolling from the Hinsdale fort through the end of April 1757. They were pulled out of Hinsdale and sent to Col. Fyre's colonial forces at Fort William Henry in May. They were at the Siege of Fort William Henry and surrendered. During the massacre Burke was accosted and stripped almost naked, but escaped. Lt. Jonathan Carver was badly wounded in the leg but also escaped. I have a secondary ref saying that Burke's company was folded into the corps, I'll re-examine it based on your guidance. I believe you may well be correct and that Burke himself did not join Rogers. He certainly didn't ever get any regular forces commission and if you are correct and no colonial units were assigned or co-opted by Rogers then I'll have to re-write that bit. I get the impression that things were a little fast and loose out there in the woods after the fall of William Henry and that Rogers was...flexible about organizational niceties. But maybe I'm misreading things, I am absolutely certain that Burke was assigned to another regiment 1759 and given 90+ different Mass men. It bears addditional research.

Thank you for this discussion. This is honestly the most enjoyable and fruitful one that I've had in 6 years on Wikipedia. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these muster rolls you speak of online? Also Rogers was not at FWH. He was in Nova Scotia at the time. One company of his rangers was still at FWH, Noah Johnson's Company, which had been led by Rogers' brother before he died shortly before. Burke's company was sent to FWH and was in the capitulation--but were clearly serving as standard infantry not rangers. The provincial companies serving as rangers were pulled out of the Massachusetts forces and held back at Fort Edward and so were not at FWH when it fell--here's the evidence which proves this from the journals of Rufus Putnam (published journals) and Josiah Thacher (unpublished at Mass. Historical Society):

Journal of Rufus Putnam, p. 35-39

"July 5 [1757]. Six Companies of Rangers were appointed out of all the Provincials; these were to do Ranging duty and no other. Out of our regiment was Capt. [Peter] West and Captain [Ebenezer] Learned, Out of Connecticut was Capt. [Israel] Putnam and Captain Sefford, and of [New] York forces Capt. McGinnis, out of Rhode Island Capt. [David] Wall.

July 6. In the afternoon the Rangers were mustered together and there fell to Capt. Learned, the men that went out of Capt. Carver's, Capt. A. Hartwell, Capt. Burke's, Capt. Talpee's Companies; and the rest of our Regt went under Capt. West. [These means each company provided a quota of men to serve as rangers with either Learned or West]

[There was a skirmish on the 23 of July, who was sent to engage the Indian war party?] "In the afternoon, Capt. Learned, Capt. Putnam, and Capt. West pursued them with about 250 men . . ."

August 2nd: "Col. Fry marched his Regt. to the Lake [FWH], except Two Companies of Rangers [Learned and West] and a great number of invalids [sick or injured]" Ensign Josiah Thacher of West's company noted in his diary (unpublished) that before this happened all men were returned to their original companies--so Burke's men who had been pulled out for scouting duty returned to Burke's company and the whole company went with Frye to FWH on Aug. 2. Because THEY WEREN'T BEING USED AS RANGERS.

The confusion I think stems from, given the two musters at AAS, which are different, the fact that Burke's 1756-early 1757 company(recruited in Sept. 1756), the rangers, was a completely different unit than the one in Frye's regiment, which was also much larger. The 36-man company was the provincial ranger unit, while the much larger (80+ men) unit (recruited in April 1757) was slated to be a regular provincial infantry unit commanded by the same guy who led the rangers--John Burke. Although all Mass. provincial units in Frye's regiment had to send a small quota of men to serve with West and Learned as rangers starting in July--probably about 10 men each. But the rest of Burke's men were serving with the rest of the regiment at Fort Edward in regular provincial duties (piquet, fort construction, road maintenance, carting supplies, escorting teamster columns, and hospital and waiter duties) until they were sent to FWH to fight a 'convential' (European) battle. These are two totally different units, each led by Burke, but each with totally separate assignments, tasks, and personnel. This shows Burke's versatility. Also, what evidence do you have that Carver served in Burke's company? I have him serving in another unit. He was from Plymouth, Mass., far, far to the east of the Bernardstown area.

RE Carver. This is from my copy of the Travels of Jonathan Carver, a reprint by the U of MN press. Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, in the Years 1766, 1767, and 1768. By J. Carver, Esq., etc. (London, 1781),

"We may trace briefly the career of Jonathan Carver of Canterbury, who appears to be the original of the traveller. Jonathan Carver of Can-terbury, the date of whose birth is not known, married in that town Abigail Robbins in 1746. In 1753 he moved to Northfield, Massachusetts, where he is credited with having made twenty pairs of shoes for Moses Field in 1754. In the winter of 1756-1757 Major John Burk, of Northfield,raised a company of rangers, in the list of which occurs the name of Jonathan Carver, but with no place of residence recorded. The names of the members of Burk's company captured at Fort William Henry in 1757 have been preserved, but Carver is not included. 1 Of this Jonathan Carver and his wife seven children were born, the eldest in 1747 and the youngest in 1762. One son, Rufus Carver, was a Revolutionary soldier and died after 1837 in Sodus, New York. There are living descendants of the daughter Abigail, who married Joshua Goss in 1774. Nothing further in regard to the military career of this Jonathan Carver can be said with positiveness. That this Jonathan Carver is the traveller seems well established."

This the one I used. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, in Carver's book he has a vivid description of his experiences at the massacre at Fort William Henry. The Wisconsin Historical Society's proceedings (1912) on Carver lists the Burk muster-rolls that Carver appears within and discusses his military service. See A Bibliography of Carver's Travels, By John Thomas Lee 1910)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gorham's Rangers

Hello, Breeze009. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Gorham's Rangers".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]