User talk:Brian Crawford/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Battle of Fort Frontenac

A user called 'magicpiano' has deleted the entire tobias smollett 1765 account of the battle on the grounds that it is biased (untrue) and not modern. he has substituted a 2006 published account. this is almost vandalism. the 2 accounts could exist very well side by side and the reader can make is own assessment. however, the user exhibits a confrontational dog-eat-dog reaction which, i believe, is not suitable for an encyclopedia, which requires a more academic, consensual approach. for myself, if i am planning a major edit, i place a statement of intention and an outline of the material on the relevant discussion page and invite comments. please take a look. also at his reactions on the discussion pageMiletus (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See my reply/replies on the article's talk page. BC_{talk to me} 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look at it and for your commentary/remarks to magicpiano. this needs sensitive treatment. In the original page, the account of the battle was rather 'sparse' and the page was logged as a 'stub' (if my memory is correct). I have the whole hume/smollet history (14 vols)in the 1822 edition and I felt that the paragraphs covering the Frontenac account could be usefully inserted as an addition/alternative (only) to the original text and not as a replacement. This is how I originally headed the inserted paragraphs. Smollet's text is undeniably clear, it is unbiased (I can see no special partiality or point of view) and it is, I believe, useful but only as an alternative, not necessarily definitive, account. Up until this controversy, nobody thought it useful to go further. Smollet himself (QV-WIKI) is a highly accomplished writer. His translation of Cervantes' don Quixote is still the standard text. I think that magicpiano's edit was sweeping, but that is up to him. However, if he is used to university-type coursework then he has to be prepared for questions and to present justifications, as is normal. best wishesMiletus (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to butt heads in any article. We all have our own ideas as to how an article should be written, and that's why WP suggests ways of handling these disagreements . As I mentioned, although old, the Smollet paragraphs are interesting and I did suggest it be included somewhere. I agree it's not particularly biased, but as far as a good explanation of the battle it leaves a lot out and I'm not sure I agree with "stellar qualities" since it is incomplete. What exists in the article now is also nowhere near complete. For instance, it would be good to include a description of the garrison, what condition the fort was in (something better than "inconsiderable and ill contrived" (in Smollet's text), the approach taken by Bradford's forces, and the aftermath needs to be addressed better and more in a long-term context. Cheers.BC_{talk to me} 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion at Queen’s University

Hi Brian! You may have acted too quickly with this edit at Queen’s University. I only put the {{Reference necessary}} template on the article less than 24 hours before you deleted the entire section. It is customary to provide wikieditors more time than that to repair items. The {{Reference necessary}} template tells the reader that the info is challenged and they should thus bear that in mind when reading. I recently received some useful guidance from an administrator here on how long to wait before deleting challenged info. You may want to check it out here. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spike. Thanks for the advice; I appreciate it. I was aware of this but after mulling it over, I decided that because it was such a poorly-written edit that leaving it up for a long period of time would affect the article's quality. I did put in the comment saying that if it was rewritten and sourced it could be put back. Cheers. - BC_{talk to me} 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a wee bit school marmy don’t you think? The flags added to the text indicate that it needs the work specified. It is more likely to be corrected more quickly when wikieditors can see the work that needs to be done, rather than when it has been eliminated in its entirety. Also, other than the weasly phrase, “is considered,” the section is not that badly worded. I am sure that once Canteaus (talk) knows that his work is challenged, he’ll offer up the citation. Now, if he doesn’t, I say, “Off with his ’ead!” (Why not put a note on his/her Talk page letting him/her know that his/her work requires substantiation?) — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Queen’s 85 (Artsci) and Queen’s 96 (Law). And you? :) — SpikeToronto (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you're coming from. I may have been a weeeee bit hasty. A judgment call on my part. Maybe I was school marmy, after all I was a teacher.:) I used "poorly written" in the context of not being thorough. A poor choice of words, perhaps. I suppose he had his words, periods and commas in the right place, but a few more explanations and context are warranted. Queen's Artsci 75, Ed.77. It's been a while. Queen's sure has changed since I graduated. I also spent a year at the University of Guelph. Sorry for placing my comment on your talk page; I didn't read the banner at the top of your page. I was trying to make things easier for you by just allowing you to see the reply on your own page rather than mine. All the best.BC_{talk to me} 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was why it ended up on my Talk page, that you were doing me a favor. Would you like me to place a comment on that other editor’s Talk page to let him know to come up with a citation? You know, what bothered me about that passage was that it seemed boastful; in which case, all the more reason for substantiation! — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't think this is a serious editor, however, and he may not even see the comment. Worth a try though. Yes, it does appear boastful, which, I guess is why I didn't feel right about leaving his edit on the page. Sort of puts Queen's in a negative light and unfairly brands Queen's as a snobby school. But you are also correct in giving him a sporting chance to support his claim and add more information. I'll add my two cents to your comments to cover all the bases if need be. What kind of law do you practice? BC_{talk to me} 01:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done     I notice that this particular wikieditor has only contributed a few edits and that they were months apart. So it may be months before s/he sees the notification on his/her Talk page. As for area of law, none. Believe it or not, I just wanted the education, learning for its own sake. What an odd duck, eh? — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you just did (the CSS loop15 stuff), but it seems to work since I can still see your message. I checked your message over on Canteaus' Talk page, and looks fine. As you say, this person may take months to see the notification. Perhaps someone else will clear things up. Not an odd duck. I went into education and did not teach for years after I graduated, and then for just a short while. Turns out I really didn't like it. Still had fun doing the degree though. BC_{talk to me} 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More Race & Ethnic Relations at Queen’s University

You might want to take a look at this section at Queen’s University. You may also wish to join the discussion. I personally believe that the wikieditor who restored the section to the article may be editing against consensus. But, as I did not participate in the earlier discussion, and do not want to read the several thousand words that it grew to, I cannot be sure. You may wish to re-participate because your name is being mentioned as justification in the new discussion for re-inserting the section. I personally think that it cannot be igonored and something about the Henry Report ought to be in the article, but it must be more balanced than it currently stands. My comments on this are at the new discussion. — SpikeToronto (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I know you haven't been editing much lately, however, your comments on this would be welcomed as my interpretation of events seems to be in question. Sunray (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if you could take a look at this image File:Alberto A. Nido jpg..jpg of Brigadier General Alberto A. Nido. Notice the badge. Now, during World War II he served at one time or another in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the British Royal Air Force. I was wondering if you know anything about the badge and if we have a proper image of the same in Wikipedia (please let me know in my "talk page"). Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to thank all of you, DocYako, MilborneOne and Brian Crawford for your imput. Yes, it is custom that an American military officer who prior to his service served for another country, place the military decorations of said country on his right side and the U.S. ones on the left, as long as said military decorations are permitted to be worn. His lapel covers a small portion of the crown above the wings, but I agree that it is hard to determine if the badge is an RAF or RCAF pilot's wings. That is the only known photo of Nido, however, I would be inclined to believe that the wings were RAF, since he participated in various missions as a member of such. It is a tough call. Thank you all once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In line citations

Thanks for your note. In line citations are the standard for all Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations, essentially because sooner or later all text will be challenged by someone and also because they guard against charges of plagiarism. It also proves the notability of subjects in new articles, which seems to get challenged a lot these days, like in this article. Because any text can be challenged I don't add anything to any articles without in-line citations. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

File:Christmas Barnstar (aviation).jpg

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Service awards proposal

Hello, Brian Crawford/Archive 3! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Super Sabre

Hey RCAF brat from Queen's,
I added that link as a matter of interest, but not having any particular faith in the information in that article.
But you've seen the film then and can vouch for its general veracity?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (U of T 8T3)
(Note that when I typed "vouch", I typed it using a really strong Canadian "ou" sound.)

P.S. I'm suddenly getting a half-recollection of a Canadian named Crawford being active at the IMDb. Any connection there?

Wow, you are a Super Authority on the Super Sabre. I've never seen the film. I don't think it was ever on TV in TO in the '60s or '70s. Just Bridges at Toko Ri all the time. (Grace Kelly, so I'm not complaining.) I think I only became aware of it since I started editing my WP page List of films based on war books. So about a year ago.

Varlaam (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Late '50's. So we are talking classic RCAF here. I don't even know what we were flying then. Starfighters are a decade later, correct?

NATO base. You mean Lahr, or did we have another?

Varlaam (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hello Brian, how come you erased 2010 Version of Daredevil. I posted on the website. Am I doing something illegal? By Raja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here. Are you talking about the film page? I only edited the film page and I didn't make any such reverts. Another editor must have. Edits on the film page were reverted because they were confusing blocks of text not related to the film and seemed to replicate information already there. Also, when editing, make sure you explain your edits in the edit summary so that your edits are clearly explained. Otherwise, editors may misunderstand what you are doing and perhaps think the edits are vandalism. BC  _{talk to me} 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Forces on YouTube

I see you reverted my edit. Can you tell me why? NorthernThunder (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is generally not a site to link to (see wp:ELNO). If it is linked, the link should provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain. IMO, the Youtube site for the Canadian Forces (the other gov't departments pages on Youtube look fine) is just a recruiting/advertising page. WP is not in the business of helping an agency with recruiting. So, essentially, the site is spam. BC  _{talk to me} 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Atheists in Edmonton

Hi, I've been following the religion edit attempts on the Edmonton article. If you haven't already, see my message to 68.149.170.73 about his/her edits here. Hopefully the cycle of edit/revert/edit/revert will soon cease. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your message. Hopefully the cycle will stop, unless this person has a POV to push, in which case we may see some more reverts. Cheers! BC  _{talk to me} 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vulcan, Alberta

Based on WP:NOTNEWS, I understand your undo. I was not previously aware that this would qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. I simply noticed Kmsiever undid 68.147.31.125's edits based on a rationale of unsourced story and, although I wouldn't normally do this, I volunteered to source it since I was familiar with the story. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Not a problem. I realized that Kmsiever reverted it because it was unsourced. At first glance I would have just sourced it too since I too am very familiar with the story and am fairly close to it (knowing Town personnel and having lived in Vulcan for several years). But then I looked at the edit further and noticed that it did not meet WP criteria for inclusion since the edit is unencyclopedic news. For Vulcanites the story is certainly notable, however. I may even try to make it to the event. Cheers.  BC  _{talk to me} 05:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Firefly crash at Canadian International Air Show

That's what I call collaborative teamwork! - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You betcha!!  BC  _{talk to me} 23:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Currie Hall

Hey Brian, I appreciate your edits to the Currie Hall piece. You did a solid job of wikifying it and making it more clear. I`ll likely create pages for some of the other Royal Military College heritage buildings in future, based on a similar template. Victoriaedwards (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you need some help with any of this, or anything else, let me know. With this article, I was mostly confused about Currie Hall vs. the Currie Building vs. the Great Hall, there was some stuff that didn't seem to belong, and some material that was redundant in that the information was repeated. I was trying to keep the article focused and on-topic. BC  _{talk to me} 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

139.181.0.34

You made a comment to 139.181.0.34 regarding inappropriate links. Sorry, but it wasn't me. I never post anon. I always use my user ID. Mediasponge (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User: Mundilfari

Hi, I noticed that you have posted on mundilfari (talk · contribs) talk page about his deletion of pop culture sections without discussion, attempts to wikify or sufficiently detailed edit summaries. You may be interested that I have brought this to the attention of the admins here and may wish to make comment. I am not making any request for banning / blocking, merely that someone gets him to understand that it is not good practice to continue to delete sections other editors have clearly indicated have at least some intrinsic value. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I think a bit of education is in order. I thought I was clear in my first comment, but after seeing that this user once again reverted the section, I'm not so sure he will get the message.  BC  _{talk to me} 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I think too. He hasn't said a word any time someone else has commented. An admin though has said something on his talk page now, so hopefully he'll take note, even if he remains silent. At least if he ignores that then we have reasonable grounds to go for a block. I don't want to because I think that checking the pop culture sections don't get out of hand with family guy referemces spamming every possible article is an important job, but this guy is just to excessive. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bears

Brian Crawford...hi, I am Darren - Zoology PhD with specific study of ursidae and felidae, including an 18 month field study of polar bears.

About you reverting my 'incorrect edits'...READ CAREFULLY.....!!!

The grizzly bear article states "Grizzly bears are North America’s second largest land carnivore, after the polar bear" This is FALSE. It is fairly common knowledge that the Kodiak is not only larger than the grizzly (BOTH are brown bear subspecies), but that it also lives in N. America ! Now the article states "after the polar bear"...correct. This makes it the THIRD largest land carnivore NOT the second. A source for this is right under your nose.....ON WIKIPEDIA !!! The kodiak bear article states that it is THE LARGEST BROWN BEAR subspecies.....now as BOTH are brown bears living in N. America and BOTH are carnivores, and it already stated that the grizzly is smaller than the polar bear, WHERE does that place the grizzly ??? THIRD !!! Of course, this is for your benefit....I wrote elements of the articles on all three bears and all are STILL riddled with inaccuracies throughout !!! I could go on, but take your time in realising the contradictions evident in these articles ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurnord (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted because your changes did not reflect the source cited. Pure and simple. If you make changes, and you know you are correcting an inaccuracy, make sure you also change the cited source. Don't just make the change and expect everyone to know that your new information is the correct information. PhD or no PhD, make sure your edits/changes are adequately cited; othewise your edits will be considered "original research", which is not permitted in Wikipedia.  BC  _{talk to me} 22:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

hello

my changes were constructive and true, i live here in brockville and everything i wrote is correct and i got from a source aswell, so idk why you removed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.69.119 (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

6 Group aircraft

Hi Brian, I've added the Order of Battle for April 1943 from Ken Delve's "Sourcebook of the RAF", which has these aircraft with the units that used them. A Bomber Group is more than just the sum of its operational bomber squadronsDirk P Broer (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides the Beam Approach Training Flights almost all other squadrons of 6 Group appear to have used Oxfords: Source: Hamlin, John F. The Oxford, Consul & Envoy File. Tonbridge, Kent, UK: Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd., 2001. pp. 54-55. Of course not in the operational bomber role...Dirk P Broer (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Manitoba and Winnipeg

This is not advertising, it’s simply stating the facility existing. The Moose, Bombers, Goldeyes, and the speedway are just as equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously promotional. You are not simply stating the faciltiy exists. You are mentioning the season schedule, that it is the "fourth largest spectator sporting facility" and that it "continues to grow" which is unsourced and pov. If you feel that this is important, please discuss on the articles' talk pages. BC  _{talk to me} 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel the copy is “promotional” perhaps you could rewrite it to be more informative to end this conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the rewriting to you since I suspect you are associated with the speedway and probably have more info at hand than I do. The content is not provincially notable in the least, so it should not be in the Manitoba article. It may be okay for the Winnipeg article but you should rewrite it so as not to be promotional. I would not include unsourced/POV claims of grandeur, and leave out anything to do with operational dates or scheduling. BTW, don't forget to sign your posts. BC  _{talk to me} 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I left him a message a while ago to discuss at Talk:Winnipeg before continuing, but it doesn't seem like he's willing to listen. I'm heading over to AN3. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will reword my copy and post when it’s completed without any offensive or hidden endorsements. I am not at all associated with the speedway at all but I do enjoy motor sports and Winnipeg. I feel this is a notable post as the speedway used to be within the city limits in its early beginnings. It’s basically a chunk of Winnipeg’s past…just moved a few minutes south of the city.

rallytron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rallytron (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Naval College - Royal Roads Military College

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your response. I recently placed the material on the Royal Canadian Naval College on the Royal Roads Military College. I note that the search term Royal Canadian Naval College leads to the Royal Roads site. I seem to recall that there was a message from an administrator at one point recommending that the 2 sites (Royal Roads & Naval College) be merged into one. I believe that the material from the Royal Canadian Naval College including the photo of the old site in Halifax was moved to Royal Roads. There is a good article by RCNC #247 R.A.F. Montgomery in e-veritas, Royal Military Colleges alumni journal, `Two Naval Colleges in Canada? Setting the Royal Roads record straight` http://everitas.rmcclub.ca/?p=41681. Victoriaedwards (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Victoria, I agree that including material about the Royal Canadian Naval College (RCNC) is fine because the RCNC was located at RRMC. This is a perfect place for it, and the material should remain. My problem was all the material describing the history of the Royal Naval College of Canada (RNCC), which is not the same as the RCNC. The RNCC was never located at Royal Roads, which is why I edited it out (the RNCC ceased to exist in 1922). Perhaps you thought you were adding material related to the Royal Canadian Naval College (relevant), when you were actually adding material related to the Royal Naval College of Canada (irrelevant)? If someone moved material related to the RNCC to the RRMC article from somewhere else, it should not have been. -- BC talk to me 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Brian, I have a good source of material on the Royal Naval College of Canada and would be ok with setting up a new article or restore the deletions and expand the existing article. I note, however that the search terms Royal Roads Military College, Royal Naval College of Canada and Royal Canadian Naval College all lead to the same article. I don`t know how to fix this in order to create a new page. Can you help?

The Royal Naval College of Canada (RNCC) (1911 to 1922) was founded in a building at the Halifax dockyard, moved temporarily to HMCS Stone Frigate in Kingston after the Halifax explosion, then moved to a building at the Esquimalt naval dockyard.

F-35 Lightning II

I would like to know why you continue to revert my edits to F-35 Lightning II. Your information is obvioulsy extremely incorrect. The F-35 Lighting II is designed to be unmatched in terms of air superiority with the exeption of the F-22 Raptor. The Sukhoi PAK FA while still being tested is considered a match for the F-35 Lighting II and F-22 Raptor because of its general characteristics. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft is not in anyway comparable to the F-35 Lightning II because it isnt even a real aircraft yet. It is still in its design phases, and preduction of the aircraft is not assured. It also has a low level of stealth which will easily be detected by the F-35 Lightning II's highly advanced AESA rader. The aircraft therfore is not comparably to the F-35 Lightning II in any way. PLEASE STOP REVERTING CHANGES WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot7 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be so, but you can't just remove content from a page without discussion. Obviously there are those who may disagree with you and want to iron out the facts. The article's talk page is the place to do this. Persistently reverting could be construed as vandalism.  BC  _{talk to me} 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

/* See also */ Oldest German Army Reenactment unit for the 352nd Infanterie Division of Normandy fame with personal accounts with actual German Army Veterans

Hello Brian,

I believe you referred my posting of our website: www.GR916NewEngland.org as spam and not adding anything to the article. How is it that our group is considered spam?

We are part of the Yankee Division Veterans Association and GR916 was started by Vincent Milano who has written "Normandie Front" and is currently finishing up a second book. There are a couple other reenactment groups listed at the article. What have they contributed that we have not?

Thank you,

Leutnant H. Heinze AKA (Jack Laramie) laramie2002@aol.com (Leutnant H. Heinze (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

No disrespect to your group, but as per wp:ELNO the information on your page does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. This history section is interesting, but is just a copy of the Wikipedia article. If your site had lots more historicaI information beyond what is in the Wikipedia article, it could be valuable (see wp:ELNO point No. 1). I interpreted the site's main purpose as promoting your group. Links to sites that are intended to promote a website are not permitted and are interpreted as being spam. See wp:ELNO point No. 4. and external link spamming. If there are other groups listed, they will probably be taken out as well.  BC  _{talk to me} 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Queen's University link

Actually there are no links to Queen's University on the Kingston, ON page, only links to the Wikipedia article on Queen's University. I suggest putting the external link back on the page.

There is not one link to Queen's website: queensu.ca

- Young2rice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.67.56 (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, There is a problem with these links. I expressed my reasoning on Kingston's talk page. Here's that comment:

Editors have attempted to link Queen's (and other organizations) in the External links section. Queen's, and other schools, etc. are already linked, albeit indirectly, via internal wikilinks, so there is really no reason to add direct links in the External links section. I am also concerned that including these links will lead to the endless external linking of other schools, businesses, corporations, NGOs, government departments, etc. etc. that happen to be located in Kingston or have offices located in the city, some of which are already wikilinked, and many of which are not notable enough to be linked in a general article. The External links section will get very long indeed, which will detract from the article and from the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't want to see the section turning into a linkfarm. Related to this is from point no. 13 of wp:ELNO: A website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject.-- BC  _{talk to me} 03:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK no problem. I just figured when people think of Kingston, ON, Queen's University would be one of those 10 or so external links. However, maybe all the other external links on that page are more world known and popular than Queen's. Maybe Queen's really ranks low and is one of those endless down-the-list external links you are talking about. Someday when Queen's becomes more recognized, perhaps outside of Kingston, Ontario where people might hear about it one day - it will get an external link. In terms of a linkfarm, that is why we have people like you to decide what belongs and what doesn't thankfully. It is good that you can decide these things and prevent links that seem invalid and let ones in that are valid (or just happen to have been linked there so long that they don't get removed). And you have decided that the Queen's University website does not belong, so that is the end of that.

- Young2Rice

I'm a Queen's alumnus and certainly don't think Queen's is low-ranked and doesn't deserve to be linked (actually it is, but indirectly). And there is a good intro to the university on the Kingston page, so it is not being ignored. I'm definitely not the final arbiter on this. I just referred to Wikipedia's guidelines, voiced a concern, and got some support. If there are other links that people feel should be removed, they probably will be. The links that are there now are directly related to the City of Kingston and therefore support the article. BTW, to painlessly sign your posts, type in four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.Cheers. BC  _{talk to me} 04:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the word Camera!

The word "Camera" is Arabic in Origin, (قمرة) (Qamara) which means a closed or private room, usually used for the room of the captain of the ship or a plane. The term Obscura is the latin term... You can look it up yourself... check this out... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_camera and also, watch this if you have time... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5icY1dMin4 dra3b ® (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These are not reliable etymology sources. BC  _{talk to me} 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy

I assuming your edit on Eddie Murphy was a result of an edit conflict? --Stickee (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an error. BC  _{talk to me} 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk template

You were pretty fast adding that level1 warning template. Thank you. ~ Elitropia (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was reverting, placed the warn, and noticed you had beat me to the actual vandalism revert. Cheers!  BC  _{talk to me} 20:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1 Division RCAF

We have a good range of categories for Category:Military units and formations of Canada. This formation is a military formation/unit, not a base or facility. Thus it is not a facility - if the article was named Metz Air Base, it would properly fall into that category and could be placed there, but it's about the formation. Now, 'NATO'. You notice that not every unit in every armed service of every NATO country is placed into the NATO units and formations categories. This is because it would make it purposeless. Only multinational formations, eg Allied Command Transformation, or Force Command Heidelberg, are placed in these categories. Thus the proper category is Category:Military units and formations of Canada or possibly 'Military units and formations of the Royal Canadian Air Force.' Does this explain what I did? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the explanation. Your edit summary comments confused me. Now I know. Cheers. BC  _{talk to me} 05:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, with your agreement, I will revert your changes. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Miami University Greek Life

Mr. Crawford. Please do not revert my changes to Miami University's page. The information there is accurate (I teach there). As far as "neutral pov," the information currently there is all praise. How is that Neutral? Unless you can prove my addition to be inaccurate, leave it alone. I'll re-add it every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehritzaa (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You must have me confused with another editor; I have no idea what you're talking about. I made no such reversion to the Miami University artlcle. Please see the edit history of the article for the proof.  BC  _{talk to me} 04:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anon's Date Format Changes, Battle of Verdun

Anon is an editor who's generally positive. He's edited before as User talk:174.3.99.176 and User talk:75.140.159.180 and probably more. You can see his hallmarks: he takes many edits to make often footling changes, and he never gives an edit summary. In the early edits, he was generally improving the article a fair bit; now, he's in the realm of diminishing returns. This bit about date formats is new behaviour but I don't think he's malicious. Vandalism warnings are probably OTT at the moment. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Rogers (soldier)

Please refrain from removing my CORRECTION to the Robert Rogers Article. I have cited the source that proves the article in its current state is incorrect, and yet it is still being removed as "unconstructive." (Which is, in fact, not a word in the English language) I also happen to speak the language in question and can affirm that you have the correct written form, but it is in the wrong tense. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community driven encyclopedia, I am a member of the aforementioned community, and I am trying to correct the GLARING mistake in this article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.84.49 (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the original name used before your "correction" is in published documents and books. Your reference does indeed use the name "Wobomagonda", and could likely be used. I suspect there are several variations on the name is various publications. However, your change was flagged as "unconstructive" because it was a change that was not explained, and the name you changed was not wrong. You should always provide an explanation in the edit summary so that other editors don't misconstrue your edits as vandalism. Better still, leave a message on the article's talk page to gain agreement on whether the change is warranted. Continuously reverting without discussion or explanation will cause it to be considered vandalism. The word "unconstructive" is indeed a valid word. It seems to be one of those words that have been analyzed to death. It may not be in every dictionary, but I know it's in Miriam-Webster. BTW, these warning messages are automatically generated, so editors who have posted the messages are not the writers. When you add sources, be careful that you add them properly or someone may think you did not add a source. See wp:citing sources. Don't forget to sign your posts.  BC  _{talk to me} 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6