User talk:Dwalrus

HI,

If anyone wants to leave a message please do so.

Thanks

Dwalrus (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dwalrus: Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming 1 March 2010 issue of the Wikipedia Signpost contains an article that touches on the controversy over victors/vanquished in the War of 1812. Could you quickly review the Signpost article for accuracy? Thanks - Draeco (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In re Ronald Wenonah, I think he's a vandal. All of his edits to date have been revert-worthy, although they require scrutiny, because they're usually somewhat plausibly phrased. I reverted him at War of 1812, but I'm not sure if the bot that came after me did the right thing in trying to rescue references. If you know the article, please check. Magic♪piano 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My revisions to the 1812 article are consistent with Wikipedia revision policy, and do not constitute vandalism My edits were intended to address the fact that many of the war of 1812 articles currently on Wikipedia are pro-American and do not adhere strictly to fact.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Wenonah (talk • contribs) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC) If you would like to cause people to think that only certain opinions are correct, and that you control the War of 1812 pages to the exclusion of all others, then write a book and do not use a public Internet site. Ronald Wenonah (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Republic in Peril" sounds decidedly biased. I prefer accurate books written for young people to biased books written for adults.Anyway, even if the book was written for children then it would still get the gist of what happened. Ronald Wenonah (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Anachronous is defined on dictionary.com as chronologically misplaced,or misplaced in time. The reference to the treaty of Paris was being used to describe the author of my reference's claim that the United States did want to annex Canada. Thereby, deleting the reference(actually, the whole edit too)is merely trying to conceal that fact and keep the page's biased view predominant. Now that I've explained this ,please allow this to stand and do not start an edit war.Ronald Wenonah (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a 1st time for everything, I'm considering posting an rfc for his behavior visa via the War of 1812 article. It isn't at all correct to start misquoting citations to prove a point and the fact that it is so blatant just makes it worse. I'd like to hear your thoughts before starting however.Tirronan (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things are settling down over there but can I get you to look at the talk page where we are having a discussion?Tirronan (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You state on Tirronan's talk page that my references do not completely support me. However,later, you state that my most recent post on the War of 1812 page (go look) is completely correct and supported by a viable author: "1. the US wanted revenge, 2. the US did not have the naval strength to take on the Royal Navy, 3. attacking Canada was the only viable recourse, 4. the part about the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris". The Treaty of Paris part was repeatedly deleted, scorned ,called "anachronous" and now described as completely correct( or at least viably supported)! By the same people( person)! I would call that anachronous. Deleting my latest post would be deleting properly cited and viable material( the exact thing you accused me of doing at the beginning of my editing career,remember)Ronald Wenonah (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Ronald WenonahRonald Wenonah (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that when you respond to a request from an IP/new user to edit a semi-protected page, it helps if you change the template from {{Edit semi-protcted}} to {{Tld|Edit semi-protcted}}. This removes the page from the Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, so that way other editors know its not something that needs to be looked at. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this fellow has no national bias of his own I see... sadly I guess that is what passes for a historian over there.Tirronan (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know. I began a discussion Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States#French founding fathers here, on whether or not the French revolutionaries are considered founding fathers.--Jojhutton (talk)

Well after Ronald got blocked he went right back to the same thing, and when I reported him to the notice board he decided it was my personal vendetta that was the problem. The report is here Wikipedia:AN/EW#User:Ronald_Wenonah_reported_by_User:Tirronan_.28Result:_.29, would you mind terribly heading over and putting in what you have to say?Tirronan (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ronald is back and doing the same thing all over again. I left a message to discuss this on the talk page and see if we can work through it. I have my doubts that he will avail himself of the opportunity but I wanted to give him the chance before returning to the ANI board. If he hasn't posted in the next 48 hours then I am going to post again on the ANI board requesting a ban. I hate absolutely hate having to do that to another editor but I guess I can't see that there are any more options at this point.Tirronan (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The saddest thing about all this with a few of the Canadian's is that if the US really wanted to annex Canada it could have been done then, it could be done now, and I don't think it has occurred to anybody to be remotely interested in trying, it is a nice country and we just don't have a problem with them. Though nobody wants to admit it, it was a war nobody wanted and nobody tried that hard to win.Tirronan (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a few of the Canadian's I can't shake the feeling that they think we still have secret meetings on how to annex the country and I swear that by all that is holy I've never heard two Americans even discuss it. The other problem is that during the negotiations there was the Congress of Vienna where the British were attempting to keep Russia and Prussia from grabbing large chunks of Poland and Germany. That was difficult to do when both countries were asking very pointed questions about expansion attempts in North America. It is also hard to demand land that had been ceded. Even more to the point the only British attack of any merit was the burning of Washington, virtually every other invasion attempt failed pretty miserably. Even in the case of the Washington attack it was a raid that made no bones about not sticking around to see what happened. That didn't give them much of a place to bargain from.Tirronan (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why you are removing my edits of Fort Mims. Jackson and Weatherford were friends and political conspirators. Jackson picked fights with every successful politician in the South in his way to the Presidency. Samuel Mims, a non violent economically powerful settler, stood in his way. Because Mims lived in an ivory castle, Jackson could not hope to pick a duel with him. Jackson sent correspondance to Weatherford suggesting he take Fort Mims. Instead of hanging him as threatened, he fed and clothed Weatherford. Later, Jackson would ensure Weatherford could build a fortune on land given to him. The Mims family and later Mimms have been assassinated 3 times since then in the south, rebuilding their fortune a total of 4 times. What primary sources do you possess of their relationship that would suggest otherwise? What primary sources do you need me to produce to accept my truthful edits?

The southern elite does not want this to get out. The latest attempt at discrediting our family came in the financial crises. Our patriarch liquidated real estate holdings prior to the financial crises in an act of incredible foresight. The founder of Wells Fargo, a member or Augusta National, took political actions to make Golden State Mortgages, a firm filled with subprime mortgages look appealing to Wachovia bank. Wachovia bought the firm. The ticking time bomb exploded so Wells Fargo could pick up the pieces. Wells then tried to call in Mimms Wachovia loans during a time of strong Mimms financial position. Wells placed Mimms funds in a contrived 1% fund for a loss of 5 million. We are holding strong, but the onslaught of the Southern Elite continues. All because of Jackson and our attempt to get history out from under the victors.

You should not believe only the facts presented to you by historical volumes. Fort Mims is mostly uncited and supported by anecdotal evidence, anecdotes by uneducated slaves and ignorant survivors. Throughout history all the important, controversial details were told orally or burned. The truth is easily altered by documents written de facto. The surviving families of the oppressed, those who could not write history deserve hearing. By pretending to protect history, you are actually obscuring the truth. Jackson is hated for a reason - he was a sociopath who murdered his own brethren to further his own political ambitions.

Sir, its time you learn the truth. After that arranged duel, Jackson became so unpopular, he had to find a way to build back his political capital. His inhibitions lowered by the recent cold blooded murder, and his sociopathic tendencies in tact, he smothered his own wife. His wife's death would inspire sympathy and eliminate a source of political trouble for him due to the controversial double marriage. This is the truth. Not the bullshit you religiously live by. Not the bullshit of the winners. This is the spoils system he so much advocated.

Why would he feed and clothe, Weatherford, later helping him build wealth? Weatherford lost that war. He is a loser in the spoils system. Answer: Jackson and Weatherford were political allies - because Jackson won, Weatherford also won.

And another thing...you know why Jackson hated Fort Mims? He detested the English. Jackson slaughtered Fort Mims and established his own Fort. This is final. This is history. Also, as some genealogies will claim, Samuel Mims was a half-breed. This is utterly false. It is a smear tactic used by the winners to suggest he was not of full European descent. I'll tell you one more thing, when it comes to human motivation, Occam's Razor don't work.

Thanks for leaving my edit,

Jared Mimms

Under my leadership, Fort Mims will stand!

For Fort Mims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, we need an Opposing Views section on Wikipedia, because victory by the winners is not going to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms (talk • contribs) 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling my family an unreliable source is like calling Andrew Jackson a good man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmimms (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from reverting the edit I did on the American Expansionism. It is not anachronous, it is from a reliable source (in fact, the book was used to favour the opposite idea further up the page) , it does not violate copyright and it is not vandalism. If it presents an idea other than the one some editors would like represented on the page, well then too bad, that is not an adequate reason to revert it. If certain editors feel it does not "accurately represent" what the authors said, well, they said it, and wikipedia does not demand edits to be "accurate representations" of what authors say. If they put it in a book which is not meant to be fictional or satirical and are reliable, then it can be used on the page and should not be reverted because it is a totally rule-complying, accurate, cited edit. Rwenonah (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, what do you think the author is saying?Rwenonah (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to remove the other editors comments. I'd made a typo and evidently deleted some things other than my target.Rwenonah (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dwalrus, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, assess and review articles, read the news, or find an open task. If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please add your username here. We hope you will join us! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]