User talk:Jack Bethune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before registering under my own name, I have submitted Wikipedia comments or contributions with these User designations: 68.56.98.132 and 71.228.87.147 Jack Bethune 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Thanks 2 Welcome to the Military history WikiProject! 3 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006 4 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006 5 Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections! 6 Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase! 7 Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006 8 Marking edits 9 Sanuel Lancaster Gerry 10 WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006 11 Simon Willard 12 Willard Brothers 13 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006 14 Adrian 15 Charles-Honoré Lannuier article 16 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006 17 Gorgets in British Service 18 Questions 19 Insignia, award, decoration 20 Landscape art link to photography 21 Your opinion, please 22 Grosses messer 23 Greek Revival architecture 24 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006 25 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007 26 WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections 27 WASP Edit War 28 WikiProject Military History elections 29 Mameluke Deletion 30 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007 31 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

[edit] Thanks

Jack, thanks for the tidy up efforts on my British sword articles.My apologies that they needed it! Epeeist smudge 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Epeeist, glad to be of help. Your work is outstanding. Am new to Wikipedia writing/editing, so I apologize to all for my clumsiness in making contributions. Jack Bethune 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and assistance. Epeeist smudge 15:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack, more thanks for your work on the Model 1832. I contributed the article as a wikipedia experiment, knowing little about the weapon, digging up some info, and hoping someone would take interest. It was gratifying to see someone fill in the gaps and flesh it out. Thanks for your contribution. Rob Mallott 7 July 2006.

Rob, those who study and collect American swords are grateful to you for taking the lead in describing this historical sword, and I'm glad you think my additions were helpful. I have offered a partial list of American swords that could use similar coverage. Perhaps other Wikipedians will be inspired by your efforts and join in. I certainly hope so. Thank you for your contributions to this important historical topic. Jack Bethune 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 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.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history 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 August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 -- 12:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marking edits

Thanks for your edits to M6 Bayonet. Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. If you do anything to change the wording of an article, it's generally not considered a minor edit. Anyway, good edits all around, thanks again, and happy Wikiing! Kafziel 13:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Kafziel, thanks for the tips on editing protocol, and for your kind comments. Both were appreciated. Jack Bethune 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanuel Lancaster Gerry

You added a link to my entry on White Mountain art that mentioned that Gerry was well known for his paintings of the Old Man of the Mountain. Although Gerry did paint the Old Man, he's not the artist that comes to mind when I think of Old Man paintings. Both George McConnell and Edward Hill (in particular) were known for their paintings of the Old Man. Is there some reason that you chose Gerry for this link? Thanks for your response on my talk page. JJ 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Gerry did paint the Old Man, but not a frequently as Edward Hill. I'll leave the link stand. Can you give me a URL to the Smithsonian painting by Gerry? I found nothing in their art inventory or on their Website. Please note that I am curating a show that opens this Saturday at the Museum of NH History. We have a Gerry of The Old Man that's 61 x 48 inches. I very interested if her ever painted a larger image of The Old Man. Thanks. JJ 14:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 - 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Willard

Hi, dear wikipedian. I have done some expansion in the Simon Willard article. I would like that you may tell me your opinion. Anytime. --AndresArce 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

Hi, dear Wikipedian. I have been doing some informs which were about Simon Willard. I would appreciate that you may tell me your opinion.

• Simon Willard's Tall Clocks
• Simon Willard's Banjo Clocks
• Simon Willard's Shelf Clocks

Actually, one last article is left and all my inform will be complete. It will take about two days. --AndresArce 20:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

[edit] Willard Brothers

Hi, dear Wikipedian. I have written a new article which is about Willard Brothers & whose function would be progressively to shorten other articles which are also about that family. Please, tell me your opinion. Anytime.

[edit] 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 21:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian

Frankly, I don't like left-aligned photos since they obscure the flow of text, and especially so on my layout (I use thumbs at 300px), but perhaps it's a matter of personal preference. But as I said, large pic to the left of the lead is a big no-no. //Halibutt 13:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, thanks for correcting the placement problem per WP policy. When it comes to layout, a rule of thumb is it's always preferable to have a photo with strong directionality (like the main photo here) to face INTO the text. In this case, that would argue for a left-aligned position. Have proposed new placement but will leave the final decision up to you. Once again, nice work on this article. Jack Bethune 13:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles-Honoré Lannuier article

Thanks very much for cleaning up and polishing the Lannuier article. And particularly for fixing my embarassing spelling error: gild v guild! Thanks again. Jim CApitol3 15:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I was so delighted to find your article on this renowned cabinetmaker that I wanted to compliment you on your fine addition to Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind words, too, and please contribute more such articles on American cabinetmakers when you find time. They are much needed and appreciated. With best wishes. Jack Bethune 17:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgets in British Service

Thanks for clarifying the reason for the suggested change to the article on gorgets. I hadn't realised that Royal Navy officers wore them during the 18th century. The practice appears to have ceased by the Napoleonic Wars as far as the Navy was concerned - although Royal Marine officers still wore a modified version of the pre-1796 Army model engraved with the Royal Arms over a shield bearing an anchor over a laurel spray. Regards Buistr 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Buistr, thank you for your thoughtful note. You might still be right about the same Royal cypher design being used on both military and naval 18th C. gorgets, so I withdrew my edit in case my memory is failing. Will check further and respond if I find some published evidence to validate my initial impression. In any case, your recent additions to this WP subject are both substantial and valuable. Please accept a vote of thanks for your very fine contributions. Best wishes Jack Bethune 11:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

What is your interest in 19th century art? Also, are you a collector? I am very disappointed that, after all these years, we have been unable to locate a photo of Samuel Lancaster Gerry. Have you ever run across one? Thanks for your kind words about my contributions. JJ 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insignia, award, decoration

Thanx for the comments on my user page. I changed several usages of "decoration" to "insignia" as a compromise, using "insignia" in the generic sense after seeing debate on the discussion page for Air Force awards and badges. "Decoration" is definitely wrong--the Air Force makes a total distinction between them (in fact the governing AFI, 36-2903 devotes separate chapters to the wearing of each). However I saw in that same AFI that insignia usually refers to "US" insignia and insignia of rank, so I have no problem with calling it a "military award" (there's also "device" but that has special meaning too, to different services and different nations). I confess what expertise I have is USAF only. If you have my changes noted, feel free to change them to "military award" and I will change those I come across. All I can say for sure is that in USAF parlance, decorations and badges are different.--Buckboard 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landscape art link to photography

I see that you deleted the link to 'landscape photography' under 'see also' in the 'landscape art' article. I think that the link certainly belongs in the 'see also' section as a closely related subject, a common reason for a 'see also' link in any article. I understand why we need a separate article for landscape art as opposed to landscape photography. But I do not understand your zealousnous in imposing an absolute quarantine between the two subjects, even in a 'see also' section. There certainly IS a strong relationship between the two. Ever since the invention of photography, the two fields have influenced and informed each other. Please allow me to put the link back in the 'see also' section. MdArtLover 13:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear MarylandArtLover, I certainly agree that a link to landscape photography is appropriate on this page, and I fully endorse its present placement at the very top of the page. Having an identical or duplicate link at the bottom of the page, under "See also," would be once too many times for any Wikipedia subject, don't you agree? That is the only reason why I removed the redundant link at the bottom of the page. If you prefer to eliminate the top-placed link and have the entry only under "See also," that would be equally fine by me. Thanks for your consideration in discussing this minor issue. More important, thanks for your invaluable and significant contributions to Wikipedia on a wide range of art-related subjects. Your work is quite impressive. With highest regards, Jack Bethune 18:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I thought it appropriate to add to the 'see also' section, even though the redirect is at the top, for a somewhat subtle reason - maybe even a questionable one.

My thinking is as follows: the redirect link to 'landscape photography' comes off as a little bit too brusque and absolute - like saying "go away, you're in the wrong place, because photography isn't an art at all!". Putting the 'landscape photography' link in the 'see also' section softens the dismissive implication of the redirect. I mean, landscape photographs certainly CAN be art, according to people with authority in these matters -- or does somebody need to explain to the Metropolitan Museum of Art that their Ansel Adams collection doesn't belong there? On the other hand, I wouldn't want to do away with the redirect, since that's useful for people who come to the 'landscape art' page primarily interested in landscape photography. So my question is this: do these considerations outweigh the dedundancy issue here?

Another solution: perhaps we could add a small section on landscape photography, and then put a 'see main article, landscape photography' over that?

(By the way, thank you for the compliment. I have worked really hard!)MdArtLover 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your initial assessment, that having the redirect at the top is probably less useful or helpful than placing it under "See also." The redirect at the top implies that some readers seeking a tangential subject like landscape photography would mistakenly arrive at the page on landscape art by mistake. I don't think that is either logicial or likely. So, I'd agree with you to eliminate the top-placed redirect and move the link to landscape photography under "See also," where it would be more visible, more pertinent, and therefore more helpful to WP readers. Others might have opinions worth sharing on this subject, but you have my vote to make these changes if you still agree. Jack Bethune 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think it belongs both at the top and in the 'See also', but I can live with it as is. When I have time, perhaps I will attempt the last solution I listed, which I think is best - but of course, it involves some work. MdArtLover 06:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion, please

See me discussion entry re Hudson River school artists. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hudson_River_school#List_of_artists_.28again.29 JJ 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack, we still have the issue of Martin who remains in the list. I believe that American Paradise states that Martin was "the last and greatest" of the movement. We must treat Inness and Martin as both in, or both out. Comments? JJ 13:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grosses messer

Hello, I was looking over some of my old edits and I happened upon this article where you actually accused me of spamming. I must say that in doing do you not only made a clear violation of WP:AGF, but also made a rather erroneous statement. I have no affiliation to the site and only discovered it after googling "Grosses messer" in a search for a picture of the weapon. I was unsure about the legal status of the photo so I added the whole link. I suggest next time you accuse someone of anything you make sure that you have some idea of what you are talking about first.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your intentions were admirable, I'm sure, but linking to a purely commercial website is simple link spamming, something discouraged by WP:EL policy, whether done for personal gain or not. I suggest next time you add an external link and complain about a revert that you have some idea of WP standards and guidelines first. Jack Bethune 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between a guideline and a policy, it was the only picture of the weapon available and thus gives an adaquate reason not to follow it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cite WP policy language that gives you or anyone else the authority to overlook WP policy on avoiding linkage to commercial websites. Thanks, Jack Bethune 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I sorry but you are confusing a policy with a guideline. Please look them up, a policy must never be broken, a guideline should generally be followed unless there is good reason not to, which in this case there is since a picture of the weapon would be helpful to the article. If you so desire you should contact and administrator and ask them if what I am saying is correct.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Revival architecture

Thank you for your kind words! There are a couple of things I'm unhappy about my own article; i) The introduction is a little too waffly to satisfy as a definition ii) I think I've done the French an injustice - I have to admit I know very little about the movement there, and iii) I think I'm right vis a vis polychromy and rationalism, but I'd like a second opinion on that. If you can encourage others to take an interest in the article I think we can build a potential featured article there! Many thanks for your edits too. Twospoonfuls 19:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 22:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WASP Edit War

Thanks for putting in your "2 cents" for the WASP page. Much appreciated. -Signaleer 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack, before identifying yourself with Signaleer too closely, you might want to refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Signaleer_--_disruptive_editing_and_sockpuppetry. The point with the WASP page isn't that the women aren't notable, it's that it is Signaleer's responsibility to document that notability with either articles or citations, which he steadfastly refuses to do. Remember, it is Wikipedia's policy (at WP:V, not just a guideline) that it is the adding editor's reponsibility to do this, so for you to say that I could Google their names is missing the point. There are well over 1,000 WASP pilots, and we don't need to add them all. What makes these special? Who knows unless the addditions are cited. Akradecki 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The users Akradecki and Tom Herbert have removed the names again. Please refer to the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots
-Signaleer 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The user Akradecki has also made threats and attempted to slander my name on Wikipedia. -Signaleer 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mameluke Deletion

I suspected you would pick up on the strange rant about USMC recruiting advers on the Mameluke Sword page.

I'm finding some time to write a bit aagin and will be doing a few more British sword articles. I'd appreciate it if you can proof read them when I post as your contributions to my earlier articles have been invaluable. Epeeist smudge 11:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Epeeist, thanks for your very kind comment. I'd welcome the opportunity to contribute to your excellent sword articles in Wikipedia. Jack Bethune 12:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)