User talk:Brian Crawford/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re:sorry for reverting you

No prob. Happens all the time, especially to me. :Dmiquonranger03 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - freedom of speech

Hi, just to let you know, Stuka115 did some considerable vandalism on the freedom of speech article... hope he is finished now!--SasiSasi (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I AM NEVER FINISHED BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU DENY ME MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO NOW I WILL BE A BURDEN TO YOU ALL!

Hmmm, looks like you've found a friend who likes to follow you around. Just don't take him home or feed him; you don't know where's he's been (other than WP) :-)--BC_{talk to me} 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anglin Bay

Brian, hi, can I ask you for input on Talk:Anglin_Bay? StevenBlack (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steven, see my reply on Talk:Anglin Bay.BC_{talk to me} 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC Canada

Hi, Brian. You made a comment on Talk:Royal_Flying_Corps about RFC Canada deserving its own article. You said you intended to create one but were too busy at the time, in July, to create it. Has your situation changed? Just curious... (BTW, I am a Queen's grad as well) Stephen Rasku (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have plans to create one. If you want to get a head start on creating such an article, feel free to start one; I'll just add content/adjust. Still doing research as well. Yay Queen's!BC_{talk to me} 19:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any qualifications to start the page. I went to the article to settle an argument and then noticed that it didn't really answer my questions. Stephen Rasku (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. I managed to start the Royal Flying Corps Canada page. I think it's a good start. Hopefully it has some of the information (or links to information) you were looking for to answer your questions. Cheers.--BC_{talk to me} 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I appreciate your effort. Stephen Rasku (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Airshows - Reverts

AirshowBuzz sells things also:

http://www.airshowbuzz.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=794

However, selling things is not the primary purpose of either AirshowBuzz or AirshowStuff. All of the content on both sites is fully accessible for free. I fail to see why AirshowBuzz should be included and AirshowStuff should not.

IMO, AirshowStuff is designed (although it may not have been the designer's intention) to sell higher quality versions of the videos on DVD, or CDs or prints of the linked photos. Any web site that has "For the 2008 holiday season, you can get 35% off on all DVD and Photo CD orders" on its front page is begging to be removed. Also, not a whole lot of encyclopedic value (relevant further information that complements/enhances the article). AirshowBuzz seems to be just selling a couple of hats (selling product is certainly not a primary purpose of this site) and has news/current events that can enhance the article. Since community-type pages and forums aren't really permitted either, this site may also eventually be removed. BC_{talk to me} 05:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Copy editor

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For all of your work on the 410 Squadron article. TARTARUS talk 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox

Brian, why have you listed Wikipedia:Sandbox at WP:AfD? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. By mistake. I was trying to test using the sandbox. As soon as I accidently did this, I tried to revert, but obviously was not successful. How can we fix this?BC_{talk to me} 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Brian, I guessed it might be something like that. The discussion page was closed pretty quickly so it can just be forgotten about. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

RCAF Userbox

No problem, userbox looks better with your changes on. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oradour-sur-Glane

Hey Brian, You've just undone my contrib on the article Oradour-sur-Glane because, as you wrote, they were redundant sentence and comment. Comments should be left on talk page.

Redundant? Redundant with what? Comments should be left on talk page.? First the talk page are never read. Secondly, to contain some nearly revisionist details in an article is a heavy reproach, that would justify the suppression of the whole controversial passage and his rewriting. But in the meanwhile, and as I'm not expert enough to know exactly which lines to suppress and what to write instead, I thought that putting a warning was a good intermediate solution... Otherwise these lines will probably stay this way a very long time, exposing some nearly revisionist elements, without having the reader to be warned in any way, when revisionism suspicions, even partial, should call for an immediate action...

Cheers :-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC).

Hey Matthieu

Hello :-)

, the redundant sentence was: "Oradour-sur-Glane is mostly known for the slaughter that was committed there by the german army during the World War II." It is redundant because it was basically the same information as is in the lead. There has been lots of discussion about accuracy, "revisionist" and POV content, which has mostly been fixed. If you feel there is more, please use the Talk page which, btw, is read.

I'm not sure on the English speaking wikipedia, but on the French speaking wikipedia, where I am mostly, the talk pages are never read :-(( . By the way, I've never had any answer to my question on this talking page: Talk:Earthrace. I don't think that I'm that far from the reality if I think that my question has never been read by anybody...Am I? ;-)

Rather than warning or commenting about possible inaccuracies in content, you should discuss specifics and actually state which text is POV/"revisionist" so that fixes can be made.

Well, I find the article mixes various versions that I've read on the subject. Some lines (eg "Early on the morning of June 10, 1944, Sturmbannführer Adolf Diekmann, commanding the I battalion of the 4th Waffen-SS ("Der Führer") Panzer-Grenadier Regiment, informed Sturmbannführer Otto Weidinger at regimental headquarters that he had been approached by two French civilians who claimed that a German officer was being held by the Resistance in Oradour-sur-Vayres, a nearby town." at the beginning, or the paragraph called "Diekmann's conduct") can, in my opinion, be seen as revisionist, in the sense that they contradict the official version, that is, the mainstream version (regardless of knowing if this official version is the whole truth, and just the whole truth, or also contains errors... "Historical revisionism (negationism) = a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream historians"). These lines seem to be based on the version of Otto Weidinger, who of course inclines to minimise the committed crimes... (in this particular case, saying that "Diekmann informed Weidinger that a German officer was being held by the Resistance in Oradour-sur-Vayres" for instance, inclines to justify the reaction, the motivation, of the German officers ; the mainstream version says that the decision of this massacre for this example had been taken on June 9th, that is, before the kidnapping of the "German officer" ).

Well, in view of what you can read in the French language wikipedia about the revisionist versions, some of the lines in the English speaking wikipedia seem to come directly from Otto Weidinger's version, while most lines, mixed with the latter ones, seem to come from the mainstream version.

Please refer to the article of the French speaking wikipedia, that is quite complete, and to the paragraph of this article about the revisionist versions (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_d%27Oradour-sur-Glane#Le_r.C3.A9cit_de_Weidinger_:_une_th.C3.A8se_r.C3.A9visionniste)

By the way, speaking of revisionism, parts of the English speaking article seem to be influenced by this site http://www.scrapbookpages.com/, that contains quite a lot of revisionist pages (according to a man who's specialised in the WWII on the French speaking wikipedia, half of the pages of this site, that contains more than 1 300 of them, are revisionist ; see for instance http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/OldPhotos/SSofficers.html).

A source of the article links to this website, without any warning about the content of this website.

Well, when you consider that this site may have been a source of the article, you understand better some mix-ups...

In the last 3 days, I've been corresponding very much per email with the webmaster of this website. He knows very well his subject, is very nice and polite, but is also very revisionist (not only to speak of what he told me about the WWII, but also what he told me of the implication of the Jews in September 11th...). Once again I don't say that this guy and his thesis are necessarily wrong, but he and his website tell a version very, hmm.. let's say, different (euphemism).

If you are interested I may forward you our mails, so that you see what he exactly thinks about the WWII and September 11th. That's very interesting and makes much clearer what you can read about his website.

Well, I think that when you put a link in an article toward such a website, the least that you must do is to put beside a warning against some of the things that you can read on the website.

On the French speaking wikipedia, all the links toward this website have been suppressed (not by me ; I had just put a warning, other wikipedians went to see more carefully the website in question and decided to suppress all the links).

On the English speaking wikipedia, 69 articles link to this website...

Better still, make the fixes yourself and make sure it's all properly sourced.

I prefer not, first because my English is not good enough, second because I prefer to let the people who wrote the article take care of the changes, I find that it is more respectful, ...

You seem to know a lot about this history, so you should know what is accurate or not, and have the sources.

..., and third because I'm not at all an expert, my main source is the French speaking article, that is very complete, very much sourced... That does not mean that the French speaking article is exempt of errors, but it presents several versions and is, in my opinion, quite convincing (the only problem in this article, in my opinion, is the lack of neutrality ; they explain neutrally the so-called revisionist version, but say immediately that it is all absurd and fanciful... ).

And also, I don't have the time currently :-(

If you want to speak more about this, or about the website scrapbookpages that I mentioned above, you should maybe get in touch with Couthon, on the French speaking wikipedia. I've been a bit in touch with him, he seems to know quite well the subject. He can speak English (but I've just read that you are from Canada, also writing in French will anyway not be neither a problem for you, will it? ;-) ).

Thanks again for this answer,

Best regards :-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Comments re: article content must not be in the main article. Cheers.--BC_{talk to me} 06:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. : I've just gone on some pages of scrapbookpages.com in order to make my own opinion about this site. I must say that many pages are sometimes written in a very ambiguous way. But I've not seen that half of the pages are revisionist, as Couthon told... Although many sentences are ambiguous, the writing style stays very moderate, intelligent, and reasonable, so that I'm wondering if the webmaster whom I've been in touch with (and whose email address I found on the website) is the same person as the author of these quite moderate pages. The mails and the website pages tell the same things, but in a style as aggressive and hateful in the mails as the style is moderate and thoughtful on the website... Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

P.S.S. : See maybe also our discussion about this site on the page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Nazisme#Site_douteux, Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Hello Brian Crawford

Are you alive :-) You haven't replied me yet :-(( Also I've posted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fascism#About_Oradour-sur-Glane_and_about_an_ambiguous_website. and on Portal_talk:Fascism#About_Oradour-sur-Glane_and_about_an_ambiguous_website., and I haven't had any reply neither (have we been concealed that the English speaking community has been entirely destroyed by a cataclysm?). See, when I say that Talk pages are never read, I'm not far from the truth, am I?

Hope that you can reply and do something with this problematic site (maybe trigger a user talk?).

Bye, Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Hi Matthieu, I am just now finding the time to reply. Sorry about the delay. You are probably correct about some of the content in this article, and eventually important changes will probably be made. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is sometimes slow in getting these changes made. I find that it is the popular articles with lots of interested editors, who have these pages on their watchlist, that get the fastest adjustments. I wish I had the time to start making these adjustments myself, and, like yourself, I don't have a strong knowledge background about this tragic incident. I think, also, that we must be careful about the term "revisionist". This term suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead. I wouldn't say that is what is happening here. I think that any inaccuracies in the article are just that, and not a deliberate attempt to change the the historical facts.

Yes, I think you're right, I should maybe choose a better word...

I read your post on the Talk page, and I'm glad you voiced your concerns there. As I said, Wikipedia can be slow, but at least you have begun pointing the article to the right direction if your concerns are correct (and I have no reason to believe they are not). I will have to brush up on my French

;-)

(although Canadian, my French is weak) and read the French article to compare the versions. Thanks for bringing this issue/potential problem to the attention of the editors of this article. Cheers. BC_{talk to me} 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer, Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

Eastern Barnstar

Thanks for helping out with the OES article back in 2007 -- took me this long to come up with a barnStar. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Queen's University Racism

I think the issue of racism at Queen's University needs to be addressed. It should be put in wikipedia so it is well known and not ignored. I am more than willing to have someone rewrite it in a different manner but it must be addressed and not ignored. We can not move forward otherwise. It is relevant.

CFB Edmonton

Hi, just wanted to point out that with this edit you introduced non-commercial reproduction content from http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_edmonton/history.html. According to the licence, http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp, and Wikipedia:Non-free content the material can't be used on Wikipedia. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan. Thanks for the message. Something is weird here. I spent a lot of time writing this section from various sources. I know the rules. This website has obviously copied their text from Wikipedia. I have never, ever copied/pasted material from any source.BC_{talk to me} 01:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK no problems. I figured that it was just a mistake as the licence on the Government web sites can be unclear. I'll contact the webmaster when I get home and have email access and see what they say. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if they will even remember what their sources were. I've kept all my original sources/links and copies of the actual articles I used for my major edits to CFB Edmonton and most other WP articles I've been involved with (and http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_edmonton/history.html web site was definitely not one of them). I suspect this kind of problem is going to crop up more and more as Wikipedia gets older and more and more Wikipedia articles are being used on other web sites. It's certainly nice that someone likes my writing well enough to lift it and place it on their web site - a government one no less. Cheers. BC_{talk to me} 02:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

They are supposed to acknowledge the fact that they got it from here. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be OK for now. They have been there for 3 years and I don't think a few more days would hurt. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed the DND and I'll let you know when I get a reply. Unfortunately I have a jury summons for today so I won't be here too often. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen's

The Warrior appears to have de-camped. While I found his presentation inappropriate, I do think he may have a point about the importance of the Henry Report. I note that articles for several other universities deal with recent controversy. For e.g., an internal memorandum that expressed concern about undergraduate student satisfaction at Harvard [1], and controversy and court cases about affirmative action at Michigan [2].

Despite the placement of this in the "History" section of the Michigan article, I think that if we do add something to the Queen's article about Henry, it would be better to place it in its own section (possibly titled: "Henry Report." It would have to be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is notable since it does reveal something about a significant problem. I think it should be written in the context of "lack of sensitivity to diversity" rather than racism, and in a succinct non-evaluative/objective/neutral manner (i.e. more like "historical news" rather than the strong, subjective POV that espouses that Queen's is a bad place full of racists, which was the POV of The Warrior). Other editors may finally get involved and have better ideas.BC_{talk to me} 21:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've (belatedly) drafted something about the Henry report that we might insert into the article. I decided to do it in a quiet corner [3] so as not to attract the attention of POV warriors. Would you be willing to take a look and see what you think. If you consider it worth pursuing, please go ahead and make editorial changes/additions as you see fit. Sunray (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that

That edit I made on the Jackson page or whatever it was was part of an experiment I am conducting to try and prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. So far, the longest it has taken is 22 minutes for an editor to remove my edit, which truly proves it.

Not a problem. Interesting experiment. Glad it worked. Even though this was an experiment, it's always a good idea to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).BC_{talk to me} 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

CF-100

No problem! Collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5