User talk:Stillstudying

All people who can engage in civilized discussion are welcome here...

---

Given the insanity from Mytwocents I would have to say there are some users who, contrary to oldwindybear's note, are not welcome here. And given my schedule, summer job, and a life, I doubt I will be here much. My experience with wikipedia has not proven to be very appealing - to be accused of being someone else? Thanks, but no thanks.Max 12:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stick around

Don't let conflicts with one editor have you distrust the rest of us! If you're going to be busy that's ok (Wikipedia doesn't pay well... or at all for that matter), but trying to improve the vast body of knowledge freely available to all is a noble cause worthy of respect (even though we get in lots of fights around here). Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. I do hope you change your mind. --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 16:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Oldwindybear

Hello Stillstudying, I am one of the admins regarding the case. I can say that it has been returned inconclusive, so neither you or Oldwindybear will be blocked. A request for checkuser was discussed between me and Dijxtra, and decided not to go ahead with it. If you need further help, do not hesitate to contact me or Dijxtra. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Charge - Goodbye

ilo-Lima|^(talk)

I will not be editing on wikipedia any further, since the investigation was inconclusive. In my case, I am a recent editor, and my experience has been unfailing negative, with a crude personal attack, which was not, and please don't take this as personal, resolved sucessfully. Everywhere I edit, the editor who attacked me will just claim another sock puppet. Frankly, oldwindybear appears to love this site, and I will leave rather than have any suspicion that I am a puppet. I do protest, and again, please do not take this personally, that this was not resolved with a check of internet addresses, so that I could remain without doing so in a way that would interfere with the work of an established editor. Max 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A final plea to stick around

Hey Max... I'm sorry to hear that it seems you've made up your mind. By inconclusive I think what kilo-lima is saying is that your accuser failed to put forth sufficient evidence to even warrant the use of Check User (as it's extremely obvious that from your posts and contribution history alone you and oldwindybear are not sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer). Checking IPs is usually only done only as the final stage of a sockpuppet investigation because it raises huge privacy concerns. It may interest you, that old windy bear has requested mediation for the actions of my two cents Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Request_for_Mediation_on_actions_of_user_Mytwocents and I'm sure he'd be saddened by your departure as well. Best of luck --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 15:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk})

Thank you, and your kind message may convince me to stick around. I myself could not understand how anyone could possibly believe I was oldwindybear, who, no offense, because I like his work, never said anything in less than forty-two paragraphs, while my edits are brief and to the point. Again, thanks, and yes, I am interested in the results of the mediation. I think oldwindybear is dead right on one point, my two cents is someone who gets extremely nasty and very personal. This attack was totally unjustified. Thanks again, back to the books! Max 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Stay

I admit I had to wince at the note that I never say anything in one or two sentences that I can say in 10,000 words, (or as you said, "never said anything in less than forty-two paragraphs), but thanks for liking my work, long winded or not. Please remember this:Charlie and people like User:Katefan0 Dijxtra User:Essjay and ilo-Lima are the true heart of wikipedia, not one nasty person who attacks you. I am truly sorry you got drug into his vendetta against me - but please do not leave.

Charlie 's efforts to get you to stay are what wikipedia really is, so please, stick around, and watch me write 42 more paragraphs somewhere, and feel free to tell me how wrong I am! Free debate and consensus is the heart of this wonderful project - stay and help! Please! old windy bear 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Wow, that was quite a bit of newbie-biting going on here, not quite the welcoming atmosphere you were hoping for, I expect... I hope you will decide to stick around (the fact that you're considering it shows some admirable diligence), as from the few edits you made it looks like you could make a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. If you need any help or if you have any questions, let me know. Kind regards, --JoanneB 20:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I second everything Joanne has said, and I'm sorry that your start here was such a rough one. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have never had a warm welcome

So here it is

A welcome from ILovePlankton Hello, Stillstudying, 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: The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Be Bold! Don't let grumpy users scare you off. Meet other new users Learn from others Play nicely with others Contribute, Contribute, Contribute! Tell us about you Test your edits in the Sandbox 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:Where to ask a question, 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, have fun, and be the best that you can be!

Thank You to Everyone

I wanted to thank everyone who came here and asked me to stay. You are a group of wonderful people. I just made my first edit in an article, and hope to make many more. Max 16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Citizen of the Galaxy

Hi Max, can you review your last edit to Citizen of the Galaxy? "Heinlein was never any finer..." is a personal opinion (a good one -- I love the book myself -- but still, an opinion). Can you edit it to remove the opinion part? Thanks! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Douglas Sure! Good point, and I should have thought of it. I will go remove it now. Thanks for catching it! Max 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, you seem to have an interest in Heinlein; take a look at the discussions on Talk:Robert A. Heinlein. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Douglas Thanks! Let me know if any of my edits are inappropriate, (I am still fairly new at this), and I will change them. Max 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: write in votes for assistant coordinator

I think it would be a bad idea. If someone has declined to run—for whatever reason—we should respect that; it would be rather unfair to them if they were to be elected (and thus expected to carry out the work) despite their not standing. Kirill Lokshin 16:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Okay, I respect your work on the project, (everyone knows without you there would not be one!), so if you say it is a bad idea, then I will drop it. Stillstudying 16:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Macrohistorical Battles of European History

Hey Still, go look at this article, [1] and see if you think it should be deleted - I don't - and if you don't, please help with the sourcing, old windy bear 11:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! No, actually I wasn't, thanks for pointing it out. Positive things will get out of this debate, at least! I am in fact quite interested in modelization in general, I wondered if you would add, in the future, some things concerning that on Arthur C. Clarke's page, or if you could point out to me a good link about it? Cheers! Tazmaniacs 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs I will find you the exact source on Sir Arthur Clarke's work on alternative histories, and I apologize for taking so long to reply, I was on vacation! I think this debate will be positive given that most of the people in it are interested in improving wikipedia, (such as yourself or the oldwindybear), not debating for the joy of it! Stillstudying 15:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility notice

If you look closely, you'll see that the Afghanistan edit was made by a bot. I doubt that the bots feelings will be hurt, or do you want me to apologise to the owner of that particular bot? I am only "rude" to vandals and people deliberatly spreading gross misinformation. Thank you for jumping off the gun nonetheless Billtheking 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Billtheking I do attempt to apologize when I am plainly wrong, and here, I was. You have my honest apologies. Stillstudying 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I often lose my temper, need to work on it. Billtheking 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Billtheking You had a genuine right to be angry, and your courteous acceptance of my apology is greatly appreciated. Stillstudying 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you know we were the same person?

PocklingtonDan -- Did you know we are the same person, because stupid me, I did not. I thought we were separate people, I really did! Some lunatic who did not even use his name put the old sock puppet accusation on my user page, claiming I was you. (check my user page history!) Since there was NO evidence listed on the evidence page, nor a request for an IP check, I deleted the whole thing. This is, by the way, the second time someone has accused me of being someone else. Last time they accused me of being oldwindybear, but alas, we are different people also. But I wondered if you were aware that you were alleged to be me, and I to be you. (If you have a great deal of money, I would like to become you, lol!) Otherwise, I apologize, but I will remain myself. I definitely declined to be oldwindybear, he is evidently quite ill. (Hope he gets better, but he listed illness as the reason for not staying on as an assistant military project coordinator - too bad, because he was a good one) At any rate, I wonder who they will accuse me of being next; Kirill, perhaps? Stillstudying 11:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I've been accused of sockpuppetry twice then (see above) I think the person who suggested I was your sockpuppet (or vice versa) was John Wallace Rich, who got a bit upset about something or other and decided to take it out on me (or you, or us both). His allegation was swiftly shut down by an admin before I even saw it. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan Does good old John Wallace do his accusations from a numbered computer without crediting himself? I was a little peeved about this, since this is twice I have been wrongly accused. I am going to say something to good old John Wallace if I know for sure it is him - would you look at the history, and see if the number that filed the complaint looks familiar? Thanks. Stillstudying 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure - thats who accused me of sockpuppetry before and I think he was banned so he may well be editing from an anonymous IP address now but there is no way to be sure of course. I would just ignore it and not get too worked up about it - no harm done - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan Hey Dan, I did not get too excited - but I did check the IP editing record, and what a shock, they were all sites he frequents! So it is pretty clear that it was indeed good old John Wallace who united you and I into one entity. Stillstudying 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan It was your pal John Wallace Rich. Because you put a link on my user page - a courtesy many of us do - and because I dared congratulate you for the military coordinator elections, and finally, because I call the Civil War the Civil War, John Wallace says I must be you! Stillstudying 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Council House Fight

Would you please look at this article, and see if it is a copyright violation? Thanks, old windy bear 10:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done bear! Stillstudying 11:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the language I cited above is still there, so I don't need to look any further. I guess I better spend some time with the article removing the copyvios myself. Thanks for looking it over though. --Butseriouslyfolks 13:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Butseriouslyfolks I am sorry, but while you certainly edited language, nothing you changed was a direct copy - and you did not identify what you claim was a copy. You stated earlier that this was the paragraph in question:

<copyvios deleted>

Which by your admission was not an exact copy, and further, was attributed. I am sorry, but I don't feel you listed sentences which were exact copies - instead you resorted to wholesale editing for the sake of doing it. I have to agree with oldwindybear, I think you were harassing him. Your edits were just to save face in an argument you were plainly wrong on. I will let oldbear see if he wishes to revert your pointless edits, and I will back him on it if he does. Stillstudying 13:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an exact copy to be a copyright violation. Even so, two of the three sentences were an exact copy, and the third was a concatenation of two more sentences. Swapping a period for a conjunction does not make it any less of a copyright violation. I suggest you spend some time at WP:C and related pages before you jump down my throat on copyright issues. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please be civil. I don't understand why you need to make this personal. WP:C is clear: We cannot cut-and-paste sentences from other websites to create our articles here. It says on every edit screen that material copied from other websites will be deleted. My edits removed the sentences that were copied from other websites. Obviously, the date is not copyrighted, and you're welcome to put it back, as long as it's not part of a copied sentence. I'm sorry I don't have time to rewrite the article, but there are other articles with copyvios that need attention and I really should be working on my RW job. But whatever else is the case, you really shouldn't be encouraging others to repost material copied from other websites. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not spend the day arguing with you either - I have a job to do also. It will be up to Bear to put it back, or revert your edits, which I have made clear I see as pointless. He had removed or changed any exact sentences and complied with WP:C -- you did not remove those, you ripped the article apart, in my judgment. I am being honest, and this is the last time I post on this. It is up to Bear how he deals with you, he asked for my opinion, and I posted it. Stillstudying 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you review my changes and compare them to the two articles Oldwindybear copied from, you'll see that most of them were exact copies, so the author failed to remove all of the copied sentences. The other sentences I removed merely had a word added here or there. I'm sorry you don't agree. I think it's quite clear from a copyright perspective. --Butseriouslyfolks 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I did compare them, and we honestly disagree. I printed out the article, and the websites in question, and don't feel that there was a copyright violation. I don't want to make this personal - an editor who I respect asked me to look at the article, and I did. I feel he complied with the law, (are you an attorney?), and we honestly disagree. Because he was the author, I feel he should do any additions or reversions, and I will back him if he does in restoring information I feel should not have been deleted. With all respect, I have studied the polices at WP:C and am fairly conversant with copyright law, (though I admit I am not an intellectual property attorney). I simply feel you are wrong, and personalized this. Stillstudying 14:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Searchers

Nice to see someone get started on the greatest western ever made. A word of advice: please use the proper referencing format with citation templates please, to save time on eventual clean-up. Thanks. Alientraveller 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller Thanks! I would appreciate any help you can give in citing properly - I feel that we should tackle the fact that Ford was trying, abeit clumsily, (to steal a phrase from Roger Ebert!) to examine racism as the reason for genocide. This was the greatest western ever made, in that it did not lose the story in the message, rather vice versa! I consider it one of the greatest movies made, period. Anyway, I would appreciate any help you can give in helping me, if I am citing incorrectly. I want to help, not create more work! Thanks again. Stillstudying 11:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's easy really, you have the <ref></ref> button underneath the signature button. And I've linked the templates for you to cut and paste. Thanks, and happy editing. Alientraveller 11:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller THANKS! I will go correct my citation/link in the new section, and check for other improperly cited sources. I appreciate the help! You seem quite knowledgable - I welcome any input as far as the new section goes, in as far as do you believe that it is sufficient to simply state, as I have, that the movie was a somber and serious attempt to tackle incredibly incendiary issues on Ford's part, and that the perception of the movie, the issues, and his take on them, have evolved? Thanks again. Stillstudying 12:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller THANKS again with the help on the references. I am learning...Stillstudying 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stillstudying, just wanted to let you know that you can contact me for assistance as well. Alientraveller and I have worked together before, so we've fine-tuned each other in respect to structuring film articles. You can leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk I truly appreciate the help from both yourself and Alientraveler. I am working hard on The Searchers to source and cite it, and help from more experienced editors is greatly appreciated! If you have read the section I have inserted, I would really welcome feedback, (am I going in the right direction?) and I really appreciate the help. I usually ask oldwindybear for help, but he is more into military history, and has done nothing I know of in film. You two are obviously well experienced and very capable in film articles, and I really appreciate the assistance! THANKS! Stillstudying 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, have you seen WikiProject Films' guidelines? Also, I would check out the project's spotlight, which shows its film articles of GA and FA status. I think this article would be a good way to encourage a "Critical interpretations" section, something that I think will give film articles more encyclopedic depth. Also, you might want to put up a peer review to get advice from other film editors on what you can do to improve the article. If you need help doing this, let me know. I'll be glad to post it for review. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk I went and looked at the guidelinesand they were very helpful. I agree a peer review would be helpful in structuring a a "Critical interpretations" section. Rather than my continuing alone, I really believe asking for peer review is the way to go. That way I could garner support and opinions on how to build such a section. This movie was so groundbreaking in it's tackling the deadly issues of race and genocide, I really think it could be incendiary if not handled just so. Would you be so kind as to post that for me? I don't know how, I have never done one in my 500 or so edits, and would be very grateful. (I would also know how next time to post one myself!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stillstudying (talk • contribs) 09:28, June 27, 2007 (UTC)

I've posted it on Talk:The Searchers (film). Look at the WikiProject Films banner under "Editing Guidelines". Click on the respective link, and feel free to ask for specific help in general after my comment. Explain what you want to accomplish, and what things you want to know to continue improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk I thank you again, and I just went and posted what I think is needed, and will begin myself to put together a CRITICAL INTERPRETATIONS section, so that I have it to show anyone interested as we (hopefully!) work to improve this article. The movie really deserves a better article! Thanks for all your help! Stillstudying 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you don't need to create section titles in the peer review. This review is part of a list seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review, so creating a section title would throw it off. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

talk • contrib Thanks! I am learning a considerable amount from you today! Stillstudying 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Head's up. If you want to get full marks, use the following for citations: {{cite web | author = | title = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate=}}. Others are supplied here if you cite newspapers, magazines or books. Alientraveller 13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller Thanks - I am trying, lol! Stillstudying 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work but why do you persist on removing every image?. Not even one screenshot of the main character you deem appropraite particularly when it is a commons image? Most film articles have one image at the very least. What seems to be the problem? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Stavro Blofeld "Expecting you" Hello and thank you! I removed the pictures only because it was strongly suggested on the peer review page, and I intend to put pictures back, but ones with more cinematic value - for instance, the one of Ethan standing in the doorway was suggested, as it is fraught with meaning, that he was the eternal outsider, that his job was done, (after rescuing Debbie), that his proper place was in the wilderness, always doomed to look in, etc. If you feel that other pictures should be added, I encourage you to put that on the peer review, I really am trying to work with everyone to strengthen the article! THANKS...Stillstudying 20:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I wanted to put this on your talk page rather than the public fora. I'm still a few hours away from being able to edit the Searchers page and, having looked at your revisions, I hope you don't mind my pointing out some things that you might feel better (under the circumstances) correcting yourself rather than someone else. The correct spelling of the following words is: virulently, particular. The possessive of it is its, not it's. Indians is capitalized (I'm Cherokee, and picky about this one!). There is no space in LeMay's name. BTW, have you been to Fort Parker? I spent summers there as a kid. Monkeyzpop 22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I was grateful that you gave me an opportunity to correct my spelling errors without making fun of me -unfortunately that is the standard response, so thanks! I hope this means that you like the gist of my changes, and agree that Ethan's love for Martha is more properly addressed in the plot section. I am going there to correct the spelling as soon as this is done. To answer your other question, I did indeed spend a fair amount of time at Fort Parker growing up - I was born at Killean. I also wince at not having capitalized "indian" as I also am part Native American. Perhaps my empathy for the Comanche and what was done to them comes from being part Comanche...Thanks again. If you don't agree with my restructuring, let us discuss it, and work towards a good agreement and let us make this the featured article it deserves to be! Stillstudying 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for that. I hope you will give consideration and take my solemn word that I formed my other statements as best I could not to hurt your feelings or insult you, but rather to point out impressions I had from reading your submissions. I do not believe I ever called you names. I don't believe I ever said you were uneducated. If you can point out a direct quotation from me that says either thing, I will retract it publicly (or as publicly as Wikipedia gets!). To say that someone's spelling mistakes makes me wonder how strong his other academic qualities are is not the same as calling someone uneducated. Also, I tried very hard -- I swear I did -- not to talk about my own credentials as if they were the best in the world, or that no one else was smart enough to compete with mine. I simply wanted you to understand that I've spent decades working on and studying this film, and that I'm not just some guy who fell off the turnip truck and thinks he knows everything without ever having actually read anything. I suppose I have a certain pride in my accomplishments and efforts, but I really am disappointed that I could not express anything about my credentials without making you think I was merely a blowhard. It was not my intent. I write submissions for a good number of articles on Wikipedia, and most of them are subjects I have both a passion and a great deal of experience with. I am tormented by the amount of material that is altered by people who know virtually nothing about what they're writing, but "heard somewhere" that something or other happened, or who believe certain things without any evidence to support those beliefs. So if I was over-reactive to anything you wrote, I apologize. Combine all those years of film history work (my fourth book is near completion, and I wrote film history articles for the National Board of Review magazine Films in Review for ten years) with my time as a high-school English teacher, and I can get a little picky about errors or repetition or structural choices that don't fit what I was taught. I would very much like to work with you to make this article among the most worthy and accurate on Wikipedia. Clearly you have a passion for it as I do. If you will forgive my tendency to react strongly against words like "always," "never," "no one," "everyone," and others that suggest universal agreement, I'll try not to be so pompous and "blowhard-y." And again, I never intended to be in the first place. I've gone through some of the most horrific edit wars imaginable lately (such as the guy who replaces anything objective about John Wayne or James Stewart with "he was a racist nazi")and I'm delighted to find you are not one of those guys. Finally, I do absolutely agree that the Ethan/Martha love story fits better where you moved it. (Ford, by the way, did indeed talk about this, in Bogdanovich's documentary and also in the book of interviews with Ford that Bogdanovich wrote.) Okay. We good? I hope so. All the best. Monkeyzpop 06:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that I just reversed my error on Le May's name. You were right. There's a space. It's on the cover of all his novels, on the copyright pages, and in his dedications. I've always seen it as LeMay, but obviously the author should have the final word on how his name is spelled. Monkeyzpop 06:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop Greetings my friend! I don't think you were being blowhardy, you were angry, and a large part of that was my fault for wounding your professionalism by saying that your edits were poor. That, and some smart-alecky edit summary comments made you angry. In a very real sense, I started tne nastiness, and you reacted, and I felt carried it up a level. I will note I was very tired and really did not mean to set this off - I had spent most of the day in court, and this is a labor of love, not a labor of making a living, and I am not as young as I used to be. (many times people assume from my nom de plume I am young, but I went back to school to finish an additional graduate degree because unfortunately, as you are well aware, our world values paper in assessing one's professional worth!) As to your comment on my education, it was "Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are." I do think that questions my education and academic credentials, (I am not seeking an apology, I simply wanted you to see I felt that was a personal attack), but I understand you were angry, and in part, a legitimate anger that I sparked - and like you, I would rather put the whole matter aside. As I noted, I have 3 college degrees, and like yourself, taught a long time ago. I have not written a book, but did work as a reporter briefly after college, and have had articles published. I think both of us are serious about trying to better these wikipedia articles, and I do try to avoid adjectives or adverbs which add POV to an article, like "horrific," (one of mine that needed removing!) I freely admit between my lead handed typing, and plain tiredness, I do make spelling errors, more than I should! (that is what comes of depending on an administrative aide to check your work at work, at home you make mistakes which go unchecked!) I am indeed with you on your aims in reducing the ridiculous edits which label John Wayne a Nazi, etc. I also believe people like you and I, older, with a tad more experience, may perhaps bring a perspective that sometimes is lacking in wikipedia, though I make haste to note I am not demeaning the contributions of our younger editors! I will close by saying that I am glad you like the move of the Ethan's feeling for Martha to the plot section - I really believed it was better presented there - and on Le May, I thought it should be written with a space in between, but also thought I could be wrong; I really do not feel I have any market on knowledge. I look forward to working with you on this and other articles in the film project, I love cinema, I feel it really reflects our culture so very vividly in the hands of a master such as Ford. Stillstudying 15:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings in return. Please be assured that my QUESTIONING your credentials didn't mean I was SAYING you didn't have any. It was a question, not a personal attack. And when I said I "wonder how strong your academic credentials are," I didn't mean education, I meant your credentials as an academician, i.e., one deeply studied over years in the field in which one proposes to write. I would never attack anyone as "uneducated." In any event, it was a question, stated in "I wonder" form, not a claim to know anything about you. Okay. Moving on. I'm traveling a great deal the next few weeks and probably won't be contributing anything here, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your latest reply. So my silence indicates nothing more than absence. I'm sure we'll have plenty Searchers stuff to discuss when I get back. Regards. Monkeyzpop 20:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MonkeyzpopGreetings back! You have my sympathies on the traveling - work requires that I move about, and it has long lost it's charm. I will say that cell phones and laptops, not to mention my trusty DVD player, make traveling more palatable than it used to be! As to our previous disagreement, as far as I am concerned, it is over. We have way too much to contribute working together to waste both of our valuable time arguing. As to qualification on editing, I did spend some time this week pondering what makes a good editor for wikipedia, and decided the classic Renaissance person would be best at editing, a person of multiple skills. In my own case, I think my work as a columnist in college reviewing movies helps some, and the combination of some classes in cinema as an art form, standard history classes, and practical experience in writing about movies - I think they all help. Certainly your mix of skills gives you an excellent base to work on these articles. I really think, (using The Searchers as an example), that Ford meant to use this movie to examine a number of truly powerful themes, the obvious, racism, racism as an excuse for genocide, obsession, psychopathy, and love as a motivator which crosses the bridge between hatred and forgiveness. While I don't in any way think my skills are sufficient to do justice to this marvelous cultural icon, heck, both of us, with Erik, and others interested, can at least try to write an article worthy of this movie.

To go back to a question you asked in an earlier posting, I do remember visiting Fort Parker as a child, and how to me it was filled with ghosts. Do you ever ponder the horrible cruel fate visited on Cynthia Ann Parker? Ripped from her family at 9, being that unusual child who finds a home among the Comanche, (as you know, they sold most either back to their families, or on to Mexicans or other Indians as slaves - Cynthia from what we know was that rare child who was placed with a family who had lost a daughter, and who, instead of using her as a slave, came to love her as a daughter!). Finding a home, she marries a great war chief, (he must have loved her, he never took a second wife, most unusual for any successful Comanche leader, let alone one of Peta Nocona's standing!), and has 3 beautiful children. Her life so happy she refuses return to the whites, evidently not once, but repeatedly. Then Sul Ross trails her husband's warriors to Pease River, and she is kidnapped a second time, and after her daughter dies of influenza, and her white family refuses her heartbroken pleas to let her find her sole remaining child, Quanah, she starves herself to death. (I used to spend many hours in the library during my first college go round, and remember even then thinking cynically that the whites never broadcast how Cynthia hated living with them so much she starved herself to death to escape!) I remember Fort Parker, and now, decades later, I understand why that place seemed filled with sadness, and ghosts...Stillstudying 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Searchers

PLease note all the free images located in the commons at :

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Searchers_%28film_1956%29.

Its a sin not to even use one image of the film when all the images are public domain -I'm sure one or two images will be beneficial to the article if cited approproariely. Other than images the article is a credit to film -excellent work! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs Thank you very much, and please let me know if you like the two pics I just added, with appropriate explanation, to the article. Thanks much for letting me know you thought it an improvement! Stillstudying 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)}

Re:oldwindybear's RFA

Hello, Stillstudying. I am leaving this message for you regarding you nomination of the User:Oldwindybear for admin status. I regret to inform you that the nomination you originally submited was not correctly filed, and to much time has gone by for me to correct the problems with it. As a result, the original nomination was deleted; however, I have refiled an RFA for oldwindybear on your behalf at the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear. I invite you comment on Oldwindbears's admin request on that page, if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

TomStar81 Thank you for refiling the nomination, I really feel the Bear deserves to be an admin. Thanks for your help. Stillstudying 11:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks, and I am very proud of you!

Stillstudying If I had not thanked you for nominating me for admin, let me do so. I also wanted to tell you how proud I was of you for supporting  But|seriously|folks  for admin. He is a first rate contributor, and deserves to be an admin, and I am very glad you saw beyond a disagreement. Heck, disagreements are bound to happen when serious editors work! Speaking of work, I like the direction you are taking The Unforgiven, it is going to be as good a job as you did on The Searchers - keep up the great work!old windy bear 00:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

old windy bear You are more than welcome for the nomination - you have helped many editors, myself included, and you deserve the admin tools. I was happy to support  But|seriously|folks  for admin also, after doing what you did, and studying his record. He deserves it also. Thanks on "The Unforgiven." I am still working on it, but am happy you like the changes so far. Stillstudying 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

What he said. If everybody here was as open-minded as you, we wouldn't need dispute resolution mechanisms. Thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 But|seriously|folks  You are more than welcome. The Bear was right, and you are very deserving of adminship, and I am glad I was able to support you. I went and looked at your work, and you really are an outstanding contributor to the project. Stillstudying 11:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi! I wanted to inform you that your recent vote (oppose #9) was a dupluicate vote, as you have already posted support #13. I've stricken both votes, please reinstate whichever you please. Thanks, --ST47Talk 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ST47Talk i have lost my mind, as I wanted to support you! Sheesh...I have been up working on a paper most of the night, and it shows! Thanks, and I will go back and support you. SORRY! Stillstudying 13:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah!!! Have some coffee, I'm told it helps! --ST47Talk 13:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ST47Talk I am drinking some now! I went back and registered STRONG SUPPORT for you, which was my intention. This is the truth, though it sounds silly, I meant the policeman tag for someone else. I literally wrote on the wrong nomination! I believe I will shortly go to bed! Thanks for your civility and understanding, which reinforces why you should have the mop!Stillstudying 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Stillstudying, thanks very much for your comment. I really appreciated the feedback as I was feeling somewhat like I was shouting into an abyss! RfA is tricky because, to a degree, we do need to look at numbers to ensure that candidates have at least got some experience in the areas that they are likely to get into as admins. But I always try to look holistically at the quality of the edits, which is what you are getting at. One of the unfortunate drawbacks of automated tools like AWB and the various javascripts is they allow people to very easily artificially inflate their edit stats and say "wow! I have over 50,000 edits!" while another person who has contributed a vast amount more to the encyclopedia as well as to the project in general may have only a fraction of that number. I mean, a person could come to RfA with, say, 500 mainspace edits and lots of people would oppose based on low article contribution. But that person's 500 article edits could really be the equivalent of another person's 50000 article edits. For example, some people will write an entire 1500 word article, complete with cats, images etc offline and then simply copy and paste that article in in one single edit. While another person would use dozens, hundreds, even thousands of edits to write a similar article. RfA is rather unfortunate at the moment and, to be honest, I am grateful that I went through mine a year ago. Unfortunately, I don't have any great ideas for improving the process, though. Anyway, thanks for your comments, they were appreciated. All the best, Sarah 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. I am going to go and review your candidate, I presume it is Oldwindybear? Sarah 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Hi Sarah, yes, I nominated oldwindybear. Part of what you wrote that appealled so to me was that here we have a candidate that really works with new editors, does reviews for the military history project, and still writes articles - 5 in the last month! He wrote Buffalo Hump, Council House Fight Great Raid of 1840 and Battle of Pease River, plus one more I cannot remember. And helped myself and other editors, as you will see if you review the support notes. (someone put in an exchange where he literally went and read two books, if I remember correctly, so he could mediate a dispute and gain consensus!) I am just horrified when such a good user is tossed out because he has "only" 5,000 edits. Where is our perspective? I thought you really hit the nail on the head, and thanks for looking at "my" candidate!Stillstudying 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

History of violence

Unless you have sources for the information, it's original reasearch. Original research is strictly not allowed. DurinsBane87 05:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DurinsBane87 Indeed it is, and if you read the link he put in there, everything he put in was said by Roger Ebert or Cronenberg himself. This is not original research, Still was careful to quote Ebert or Cronenberg.Finishedwithschool 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for your participation in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am very grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Happy editing! Sincerely, Neranei ^T/C 11:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

Stillstudying I am very grateful to you for nominating me for adminship. There has arisen a problem in that I nominated TomStar81 for adminship, and someone, New England, has accused me of nominating him in some sort of payback - that is what is inferred. I would appreciate it if you would set the matter straight. The link is [2] This is very distressing, as he only properly formatted your nomination, yet the inference is that my nomination of him is some sort of payback - if that was so, I would have nominated you. *(you might make a good admin, someday, but you need a lot mroe experience before I would put you up!) At any rate, please check this, and I see you have an issue on the movie A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, I will take my admin self over and look at that, since I am here!old windy bear 14:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stillstudying I did go look at A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, which appears fine, though if the other editor wants to more explicitly link Ebert's evaluation of the Darwinian aspect of Cronenberg's work, there isn't anything wrong with that. On the issue with New England, go look at what was written, and I am curious whether you believe he basically inferred my nomination was some sort of payback. I am not arguing with this person on the poor candidate's page, but I am curious whether you draw the same conclusion from what he wrote. Lord, why can't people just Assume good faith ? At any rate, I will be curious to get your take on this. old windy bear 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Caution

Your demeanor is causing problems. Calling people "pitiful excuses for admins" [3] and saying things like "let me put this in simple words that even you can understand" [4] is unacceptable. RfA is not a battleground, and more importantly, neither is Wikipedia. If you cannot discuss this issue while remaining completely neutral, I suggest that you do not discuss the issue at all. --Deskana (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will moderate my tone, but Deskana, does it bother anyone that open lying went on, and no one seems concerned about the open attacks on a great editor, and new admin, when anyone who read the record knew it was a lie? I guess not, and I find that really sad. The real issue, that a user lied openly - because I nominated the bear, and the record is chock full of my statements, is just forgotten. I think it is sad!Stillstudying 11:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Who nominated who does not matter. Someone's record will not be forever tainted if they nominated each other for adminship. I'm not saying it is a lie... but so what if it is? It's not like it's libel. Oldwindybear should not have blocked New England, as regardless of whether the block was valid, it was a conflict of interest. If I lied and said you registered two hours before you actually did, would it matter? No. Your record would not be tarnished, people would just think "Why bother lying". This is a similar situation. The real issue has not been forgotten. The issue is under discussion at the administrator's noticeboard. Calling people "pitiful admins" only antagonises the situation. What is sad about this situation is that two established editors have been arguing over a complete non-issue. --Deskana (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)