User talk:Natty10000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your recent edits[edit]

Query related to your recent edits. I understand you are monitoring a page I, as a new user, have started working on. I would like to request revision or deletion for two of my edits. I did not realize that I was not logged in (I had asked to be remembered), and I made small changes following up on your edits. In these two cases, the revision is now associated with a contributor number which is not me, and not anything related to my computer, so I don't understand why that number was put there. I would like the number removed and replaced by my contributor name, or a deletion of the two minimal edits. Is that possible? SCHSmem (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The number associated with the edits is the IP address of your computer and is way of identifying people who want to edit but don't want to go to the trouble of registering. It's sort of a red flag (for me at least) when edits are made by an IP rather than an identifiable user. OTTOMH, if you want those edits associated with your user name, try re-doing them. It isn't something I've tried personally but if it's important to you, give it a shot HTH  Natty10000 | Natter  20:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I do want to get rid of the number - it's network, not my computer. I want the user name rather than this number. I assumed that I cannot delete something in the history - I thought it is not possible. Are you suggesting I "undo". Surely that would simply add another complication to the history?
If it's the IP address you want to get rid of from the article's editing history, that's beyond my ability to help you with and I'm not sure where to direct your researches. Sorry  Natty10000 | Natter  01:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Altering the name on a page as well as the page's resource[edit]


I'm looking for guidance and assistance regarding what is presently under the heading of DeCow House and John DeCow. Present usage of the name is DeCew and I would expect that it is through that spelling, enquiries would come although (as is delineated in the respective articles) the name has been subject to various spellings. I put a note on the talk page of the respective articles on the 19th and seeing no response, brought it to a higher level for advice. What's the best approach to take in a situation such as this?

TIA Natty10000 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you need to do. You can use several search methods both in Wikipedia and in Google. For example, use the search botton instead of the go button. Here at WP, you can tag an article for a proposed merger or proposed move. See WP:PM. Does that help? Bearian (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It might. I'm just looking to make the article more easily found and enjoyed by younger wikiers who might be using this as a research resource and are not going to be cognisant of the alternate spellings. I'll suggest merging and see how that shakes out. Many thanksNatty10000 (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll mark this helpme as complete, if that's OK. Pop another one on if you need more help. --GedUK  20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as the respective articles are easily accessed and appreciated, dandy Ged. I just wanted to make sure that my actions hadn't created a disconnectNatty10000 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Merging the articles is a completely separate issue from the spelling question. We might as well keep separate articles, one about the man and one about the house.
Page move, mentioned by Bearian, would be the appropriate way to implement a decision to use the "DeCew" spelling as the favored one. The key thing is not to do a cut-and-paste of content from DeCou House to DeCew House, because that would lose the page history. There's some information at Help:Moving a page, but you should also look at Wikipedia:Requested moves, particularly in light of this instruction: "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." Given that the articles already acknowledge the alternative spellings, yet the articles are where they are, it's not all far-fetched to think that someone could reasonably object to your proposed change. That's why it would be better to proceed by trying to achieve consensus on the talk pages first. There's even a procedure for Moving several pages at once, which seems appropriate here. If no one objects after a reasonable time, you can treat that as consensus. JamesMLane t c 20:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks James. I had put a note in the talk section of the respective pages asking for feedback 11 days ago and seen nothing. It isn't like a few more days patience is going to make a difference one way or another.Natty10000 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another source of help[edit]

Hi, I'm glad you have become a wikieditor! You say you are trying to make things easier for youngsters. I'd like to suggest something that may make it easier for you as well. In addition to the "helpme" template (isn't it amazing how quickly that works?), you may find knowledgeable editors by going to a related project page. So, for DeCou House, you can look at its talkpage, Talk:DeCou House, and see at the top that it is within the remit of a couple of wikiprojects. I tend to start with the most specific one first, so I checked out Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario before going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada. Both have active talkpages, where you can ask questions and perhaps find other editors with similar interests and concerns. Good luck, and if I can give any general encouragement, please let me know! I will keep this page on my watchlist for a week or so, so if you reply here within that time, I will see it. Or, of course, you can put a note on my talkpage. Again, welcome! BrainyBabe (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, BB. I'll start looking into that as it seems that that's more likely within the specialised realm I'm looking to broach. My interest is primarily War of 1812 topics (as I'm sure is evident to anyone making even a passing perusal of my edits). With the bicentennial of the War upcoming in 3 years, I'm sure that there's going to be an increasing passel of students, Yank and Canuck, looking to edumacate themselves about various topics relevant to the War and I'm hoping to do my best working with others to make the information at-hand as accessible and interesting as possible. Natty10000 (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Wel, you certainly start planning ahead of time! I wish I had your foresight! I was just discussing Mary Wollstonecraft with one of her biographers, and grumbling at the general lack of public commemorations of her 250th anniversary. (Though I did help get her on the Wikipedia homepage on Monday, in two places, w00t!) She said that we would have had to start years before, lobbying the committees that fund the cultural institutions that host the events that raise the public profile. BTW -- "edumacate"? You don't seem a fumblefingers like me, so presumably this has some specialised meaning of which I am ignorant. I am happy to be educated! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Years for sure. And given the scope of the ground involvement in the War, plans for the relevant years should really be laid out now which highlight the local sites, putting them into the larger context of the War and educating school children local to the particular areas begun. And because there's an overlap with the sesquicentennial of the U.S. Civil War through that time period, you run the risk of historying-out the average Joe and Jane who aren't really going to perceive a terribly significant difference between the two. Then you run a risk of a Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea dynamic between the organising groups of both memorials as they try to draw on reenactors who typically like to shift between portrayal periods.
The War of 1812 in the States is probably the most influential yet least appreciated time in the States in terms of internal change. The armed forces of today are a direct outcome of hard lessons learned in 1812. By 1814 (in particular, the Battle of Lundy's Lane), changes had worked their way through the system that showed that such humbling disasters as Detroit and Michilimackinaw wouldn't be repeated. Then there's that national anthem thing. :)
As for edumacate? Just a non-word I seem to recall picking up from a Warner Bros. cartoon sometime in my dimly-remembered past. Makes me more approachable as a genius, donchaknow?  :D Natty10000 (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for elucidating the lexical innovation, o genius! I like the Judean ref. I'd better leave you to get on with it, but if you need general encouragement in the future, just drop me a line. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to firmly demonstrate my own claim to the title of "genius", I'm compelled to point out that the term "edumacate", is in actuality derived from the work of the renowned folk lexicographer Popeye; not a Warner Brothers character. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pick pick pick pick!  :D Natty10000 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tim1357 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The change was actually a correction of a misread on my part of an earlier addition that I'd made to the article. To whit, I'd misread the Graves article as saying that Willcocks and Roosevelt had been buried in Fort Erie, NY when in fact in going back through the article, it became clear that the bodies of Willcocks and Roosevelt had been brought over from Fort Erie and that my initial addition had been in error on that particular point. The article now is factually correct. Natty10000 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


"Permanently tainted goods"? Oh, absolutely not. You can even use the plaque as a source of information.

That said, I'm not certain that "Skirmish at Thomas McRae's house" is the best possible title. DS (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. So the title's fair game yet. Once I get a chance to revisit the entry, I'll be a little more thorough on my sourcing. As for the title, as far as I've been able to determine, that's the virtually universal name by which the action was known. To be honest, it'd be hard to imagine describing an action where one side has 40 combatants involved and the other 37 with just one killed betwixt the two as anything more substantial than a skirmish. :) Natty10000 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Speedy deletion[edit]

Regarding a user who has incorporated a topic into a biography page that has previously been speedily deleted as a stand-alone page, does this fall within the coverage of speedy deletion? If not, is there a section it falls afoul of? To whit, I'm referring to the "Corposcindosis" component of the Ace Baker page. A stand-alone page on the topic has been twice-before deleted, once in July 2005 and again in July 2009. Many thanks for any help as it would seem the subject is generating much information about himself and the page does not reflect well on Wiki's normal standards Natty10000 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  • It is quite feasible and acceptable to include content into an article, as done with the Corposcindosis section. While it was not found to be appropriate for a standalone article, the section is applicable to the subject. That said, notability of the subject is not established. Additionally, the article offers several citations using unacceptable unreliable, self-published sources. These need to be removed. The general notability guidelines required significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, the threshold for notability has not been met. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cindy and thanks. Insofar as "notability of the subject" is concerned, are you referring to the article in general or just the Corposcindosis component? The "unacceptable unreliable, self-published sources" have been added recently by User Ace Baker (who asserts himself to be Alexander Baker) and appear to be an attempt to screen an embarrassing incident behind a wall of Alexander Baker trivia. Natty10000 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. Ace Baker (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
User Ace Baker, do you mind terribly learning to use the colon so that your responses to topics are identifiable as such and not leaving the formatting correction to others to maintain readability? It isn't much to ask plus it also saves my page from being too much littered with the musings of someone potentially cyber-stalking Alexander Baker Natty10000 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
My patent, and my treatise on Thoracic Sympathectomy are not trivia. Besides being referenced with about 200 citations to the mainstream literature, my term Corposcindosis, with its definition, have been used by an MD in a mainstream journal. This is notable on its face. Can anyone cite another example where a non-medical professional authored an original theory, named it, and had the term used by a mainstream journal? I can't. Ace Baker (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
And this has anything to do with formatting Natty10000 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Horst von der Goltz[edit]

Unfortunately I speak absolutely no German what so ever so am unable to assist with any translation work and to be honest, article writing is not my forte. Hope someone with an interest in the area, knowledge of German and skills to write the article comes along soon, looks like an interesting character. Decathlete (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! So you're as fluent in German as I am? :) I've put a 'help me' flag on the article which should draw attention from those better-versed in Wikiing and which might facilitate the translation process. When I looked at the German entry, I was rather surprised at how extensive it is compared to its English counterpart and if Google Translate didn't bodge the subtleties of translations so badly, I might entertain the notion of handling things that way. But I definitely agree with you that von der Goltz qualifies as interesting. Hopefully we'll be able to flesh-out the entry User:Natty10000 [Stop me before I edit again!] 14:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Benajah Mallory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Fort Erie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Brad Watson, Miami[edit]

WP:FRINGE and WP:TE apply big time here. Check out the link he left on my talk page (the numbers are part of his obsession with gematria), which he's tried to cite as a source before. He's the only member of the forum in that link, and he claims to be the reincarnation of Einstein and Jesus. Just a little bit more of a heads up on how rational an individual we're dealing with. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian; I'd assumed as much from a perusal of his posts. Quite the catch, our Brad is. :) TTYL  Natty10000 | Natter  14:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Rona Ambrose shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LegoKontribsTalkM 02:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the rule but all things considered, it makes sense. I think things have progressed in the direction of hashing-out on the talk page. But I hope that that forum is respected as the place where the discussion should take place with the IP editors. As I've said, I'm trying to retain a semblance of neutrality that is (to my eye anyway) being undermined in the article  Natty10000 | Natter  03:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Thats a good start, the talk page is definitely the accepted forum.
I've watchlisted the article for now and will try and ensure no WP:BLP violations occur, but if you feel like I missed something or need a second/neutral opinion, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. LegoKontribsTalkM 03:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Laura Secord[edit]

Hi Natty, I'm currently reviewing this article at WP:FAC. What would you like to see us do with the lead? Per WP:LEAD, we need quite a bit more than one short paragraph if it's going to be able to pass, but of course, feel to lend a hand in figuring out what the "more" should be. We need to summarize the article. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that it gives a bit more detail than is needed, and I'm going to trim some of that. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dank, Evidently we crossed paths. Looking at WP:LEAD the quotes that jump out at me are "a summary of its most important aspects" and "a concise overview", something the Dan Brown-like inflation of it doesn't qualify for IMHO. Sometimes brevity really is the soul of wit.  Natty10000 | Natter  22:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, Curly and I are arguing about that now :) FAC has evolved an understanding of WP:LEAD over the years, and we'll need more than one short paragraph ... but less than he had. I'm waiting on his response. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at it, it's unwieldy. I'd suggest comparing it with the lead on much more involved entries like the Burning of Washington or the Battle of Lake Erie (both of which are a 1-paragraph lead) or the entry on Sir Isaac Brock and against this comparison decide for yourself why the Laura Secord lead merits such a bloated lead.  Natty10000 | Natter  13:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, got tied up with other things, it'll be shorter before we're done. I've personally reviewed around a thousand FACs and read a few thousand more, and neither Burning of Washington nor Battle of Lake Erie would pass FAC with those leads. That doesn't mean FAC standards are the only reasonable standards, but they are what they are. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That surprises me because I'd argue they quite succinctly summarise the articles in question without belabouring and repeating information dealt with later in the article. In fact, from the sounds of it none of the leads on any of the War of 1812-related articles that I have on my watchlist would pass muster. I guess it then becomes whether the problem is the article or the guideline. BTW, WTF is FAC? :)  Natty10000 | Natter  15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
FAC stands for Fetured Article Candidate. You can see all the current FACs at WP:FAC and the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. You can read or take part in the discussion of the Laura Secord article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laura Secord/archive1. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Laura Secord[edit]

Thanks for spotting that. I missed it on my clean up. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You lazy bahstahd!!! :) Hey, it was sitting there 3 years; I missed it too. Too much focus on the trees and missing the forest :)  Natty10000 | Natter  14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I was kidding.[edit]

See my talk page. Just want to be clear, I was not POd at your behaviour at all, you were doing the right thing! Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Another fine example of revisionistic history.....[edit]

"As war with the United States threatened, on 15 April 1812 Sir George Prevost, the Governor General of Canada, authorised the enlistment of a Provincial Corps of Light Infantry under Lieutenant Colonel Charles de Salaberry, to serve during war or the "apprehension of war".

was the position not the Governor General of British North America as it became Canada under the independence in 1867 adn Canada was not a name yet?

All these bloody commercials about how great Cananda was in the 1812 war when it was the British not Canada" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Tories are big on rewriting history for their own use and comic-book minds, your tax dollars at work. Government commercials I hope are certainly notbeing used as citations here, nor any of those "Heritage Minutes" things from which are often just as bad. The War of 1812 theme of the current govt likes to claim that was the last major conflict and the beginning of long friendship......well, I guess the Oregon Dispute, Aroostook War, San Juans/Pig War, Alaska Boundary Dispute, Bering Sea Crisis, Fenian Raids and all that weren't important at all in the scheme of things...if you listen to the Tory script writers. This isn't a blog so I'll desist but yeah the War of 1812 has been totally overblown as well as repropagandized...what got me about the one commercial I saw in a theatre in Hamilton was how noble and handsome all the British troops were, and what caricatures of natives the FN actors were, and how it was British officers, not Tecumseh, who got the cameo.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel commemorating the War of 1812 has been "totally overblown". Perhaps you might want to posit how North American history would have been different had it not happened or not happened as it did and whether there'd be a Canada at all.
But that aside, critiquing a commercial for not being a thorough documentary is a bit over the top. They're only meant to get people's attention and hopefully get them thinking about Canadian stories that we tend not to hear over the dim from the south. It falls to other sources to flesh things out for the interested and considering the time constraints of the Heritage Minutes, they're more part of the answer than part of the problem. The other disputes you raise will have their moments but in general, peace has reigned since the War of 1812 and I think it a bit truculent to gainsay recognition of its bicentennial.
And just in case you're inclined to respond calling me a Tory apologist or somesuch, I'm anything but. I'm just one of those odd ducks who recognises the signal role the War of 1812 played in creating the dynamic that led to Confederation.  Natty10000 | Natter  17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not a forum so won't engage you on that, my point is clear, the War of 1812 was unprecedented hype about something that wasn't even really a victory and wasn't OUR affair, but Britain's, and the hype that peace supposedly reigned because of the war's resolution is utter nonsense. In the early 1840s (Oregon Dispute), again in 1859-71 (San Juans Dispute/Pig War) and in 1885 (the Bering Sea Crisis which was near the brink of global war), and in 1898-1901 there was not just risk of outright war but actual conflicts, apparently unknown to the secure, navel-gazing Central Canada bubble; anyy one of those conflicts if they had gone to full war would have brought Canada (ON-QC) and the Maritimes into them; the US also considered intervening in the Riel Rebellions, it's not like the US and "Canada" were holding hands and singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing" since 1815.....and I can tell you the Heritage Minutes have so many glossovers and bad "synth" it's embarrassing.....your claim that those other disputes "had their moments" is a gross understatement; 1885 was in the middle of the Great Eastern Crisis in Europe, and even despite that Britain was ready for all-out war because British Columbian vessels had been seized by the US....I guess maybe if that had happened on Lake Ontario you might have heard about it.Skookum1 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
And how is spending $28 million dollars on a cheesy, revisionist bicentennial of a long ago war to celebrate non-existent military glory when veterans' benefits are getting cut not overblown. And every Tory apologist I hear in news forums claims that they're not. WP:DUCK applies.Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Geez, we could have had half a dozen gazebos for the same amount....Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The importance of the War of 1812 lies in the fact that the very notion of Canadians being different from Americans got its start as a result of that conflict. Had things stopped after the first campaigning season or had Brock not embarrassed the Americans with the taking of Detroit or the British cancelled the Orders in Council sooner, the migration of US citizens (*the 'late loyalists') would have continued until the tipping point of population demographic reached and Upper Canada (at the very least) would have made to join with the US, Texas earlier and on a larger scale. Prior to the Battle of York, the average citizen certainly didn't see much advantage being a British subject and call the border porous would be a huge understatement. However, the happenings of 1813 and 1814 caused the schism and by the efforts of the Loyal and Patriotic Society, the notion of a Canadian separate and distinct from Americans took form, ultimately leading to Confederation a half-century later. It's because of the War that there's a sense of 'Us' as distinct from 'Them', a distinction that media in the last half-century has done much to soften and mitigate. As for the other disputes you mention, by your own words "if they had gone to full war" point out the central difference. This isn't to gainsay the importance that they've played but they WEREN'T all-encompassing wars and are an apples-and-oranges comparison.
As I said, the Heritage Minutes are for all intents and purposes commercials and not intended to be encyclopedic in their coverage. But they are good for a brief overview which hopefully will engage people to delve deeper; you really can't expect more of them than that. As for your describing the GOC ads as "revisionist", I'd call them simplistic (unfortunately necessary because we do such a poor job of telling our own stories in this country). Since becoming interested in the War some years ago, it's astonished me the interesting information that I never learned as a younger man. No real appreciation for the pivotal role the First Nations played in keeping the States at bay, no notion of the traitors that fought alongside the US forces, no notion of the role Black Canadians played, no notion that the existence of the country revolves around ONE cannon shot not taken at the Battle of Stoney Creek.
The War deserves recognition though I don't disagree that the execution could have been accomplished more effectively for less; that's a general truism of most anything governments undertake. I for one don't understand Harper and Co.'s obsession with the pie-in-the-sky-doesn't-yet-fly F-35 when the bird-in-the-hand Super Hornet would make far more sense for our defense requirements at a much lower price point (not to mention not requiring a radical and expensive retooling of the air force). I also don't understand why they felt it important to slap "Royal" back into the name of the air force and navy; talk about an embarrassing climb-down for a sovereign country. Ultimately, I couldn't care less whether you believe me regarding not being a Tory apologist; that's your problem. I do, however, support the remembrance of the War of 1812 because without it (the War), there would be no Canada as we know it.  Natty10000 | Natter  16:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Either you're gullible or you're a WP:DUCK. The war did not deserve $28 million in highly politicized commercials at a time when veterans' affairs budgets were being cut and individual veterans being harassed for medical claims and the government blusters about waste by other parties. Justifying that kind of expenditure as you are doing because of a sloppy interpretation of its "importance" and a widely-criticized spin agenda built into the advertising is just gullibility or a willingness to buy the government's line hook line and sinker. As for your adjugement that the other thigns, because they didn't go to war, weren't conflicts so don't count in the claim that the War of 1812 endeded hostility and enmity between the US and Canada/Britain is utter poppycock and just demonstrates to me the ignorance of Central Canadian-based history and viewpoints. Or just more propaganda. All of the Oregon, San Juan, Bering and Alaska disputes were not just on the edge of outright war from both sides, and not a slight risk but in-your-face confrontation, and all involved actual violence and threats by the US of invasion and annexation. If you don't know about any of that, maybe you've only been reading about the War of 1812 and dn't know f-all else.Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Guess what? I'm neither though I seriously doubt you're going to accept that. The War DOES deserve recognition in a balanced and nuanced way, a way that commercials by time constraint are incapable of delivering. That was my point; that the commercials, Heritage Minutes, etc. would prime the pump of those inclined. Veterans' Affairs deserves better but there are better sources for correcting that than turning our backs on the event that started the ball rolling for this country. I gave you a perfect source in the F-35 debacle.
If your real issue is that you resent commemorating the War period, then say so without throwing out a canard. My interest in the War goes back a decade, predating the Tory government and rectifying a public school oversight. Quite honestly, "As for the other disputes you mention, by your own words "if they had gone to full war" points out the central difference. This isn't to gainsay the importance that they've played but they WEREN'T all-encompassing wars and are an apples-and-oranges comparison." Note that I didn't say they "weren't conflicts"; just that they weren't in actuality of the same all-encompassing scale as the War of 1812. You seem intent on putting words in my mouth and creating strawman arguments which haven't anything to do with what I actually said. You seem to want to categorise me as dismissing the other issues you point out as if I actually believe that the intervening two centuries have been utter peace. You want to talk about poppycock, feel free. What it hasn't been is out-and-out war.
Veterans' Affairs and available funds notwithstanding, what is your take on the War of 1812? Would it still be as seemingly unimportant in your view? Things don't have to be either/or insofar as the War vs. any of the other conflicts/issues that have passed in the interim. Ten years and much reading about various facets of the conflict have given me what I think is a very good grounding in the whys and wherefores of the War. So enlighten me on where you see the 'sloppiness'  Natty10000 | Natter  02:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That you would excuse the F35 as a "debacle" and give me your own stupid failing grade for it proves to me that you're nothing more than a Tory propagandist here to waste other people's energy and "correct facts". Bored now, I have better things to do that engage your further. Say hi to Steve.Skookum1 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"Nuanced" - as if you were more intelligent and more perceptive and had a better handle on subtle than I do, when you don't even know the details of hte conflicts I'm talking about. I've heard that "nuanced" line before, it's standard far for Tory trollbots in the rest of guys all have the same playbook, and many claim like you do to not be what you obviously are, and pretend that somehow you're more rational when really you're defending hte indefensible with twisted logics and reductionist thinking. I'll unwatchlist your page now, you bore me.Skookum1 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you even have a clue what a debacle is? Would it help your understanding if I described the F-35 as a cluster-fuck? I suspect you know exactly what I meant but are tucking tale and running away. Fine. Just don't pretend you're doing anything else and that you're pursuing anything approaching a high road. If you only had the slightest clue of how ironic it is that you're claiming I'm a Tory. Oh, and I'm waiting for your explanation of my 'sloppiness'  Natty10000 | Natter  03:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Patriot War edit warring[edit]

Hello, I'd like to inform you I've revised your last edit to the article. Though Navy Island was retaken by the British, the Republic of Canada wasn't dismantled until after it's capture by the U.S. army in Buffalo, New York. I'd like to avoid going down the path of getting you blocked, because I know how it feels to be blocked for something you're unaware of. But now you know, and if you continue I'll have no choice but to do just that. Sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused, thank you. UnbiasedVictory (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)}}

That's most ironic you're accusing someone else of edit warring. I'm sorry you don't seem to appreciate others not getting in line behind your bias  Natty10000 | Natter  13:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Franklin's Lost Expedition[edit]

You might want to unrevert your revert on this article. I changed it because I made a mistake by saying that the paper was published, instead of the correct status of the paper that it has been *accepted for publication*. But at this time we have no date for when that publication will occur. That's why I changed it to "accepted for publication". If there was "attitude" on my part it was in my stated reason for changing my original choice of words in the article, not the article itself. But for what it's worth, I stand by my statement that the error I made was miserable and I should have known it at the time. grifterlake (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User Americanijuan / Editing Net / UnbiasedVictory[edit]

For your information, I have taken the matter regarding this disruptive editor to the admins (again). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FEdit_warring.23User:Amerijuanican_reported_by_User:HLGallon_.28Result:_.29 HLGallon (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the bit 'twixt your teeth. Given the cross-section of articles that he edited and the similarity with the interests of UnbiasedVictory, it seemed likely to me that it was he. However, I'm glad you were able to take it beyond mere suspicion.  Natty10000 | Natter  02:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
A heads-up; our old friend (NOT!) may be back, this time as User:FantasticPlastic (talk). The editing behaviour is obviously identical; a few edits to the user's home page to establish identity, then homing in on War of 1812 articles; insertion of unsourced content into the articles' info. boxes and ledes/leads. Just in case this is a new user, I have pounced the first few of these edits, but my trigger finger is twitching. HLGallon (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Oy! :/ He can't really think that it went unnoticed, can he? Natty10000 | Natter  13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi guys, I noticed the information I added in a few particular areas were unsourced and wanted to offer an apology. The information won't be added again and I hope to put this behind us. Thank you for your time. FantasticPlastic (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)