Hey, thanks for your contrib to the North Omaha article. The article hasn't garnered that much editorializing, and I know it needs checked by someone who either knows the facts or knows how to find them. Thanks. - Freechild 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem, I'll keep my eye on the articles and source things when/if I find good sources for things that need sourcing. Keep up your good work, by the way. Its nice to see familiar places get some WP love. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Prospect Hill Cemetery and Preston Love are up. So is my workspace, if you're interested - thanks for the idea. Also, I'm looking for information about Omaha's housing projects, particularly those that are gone now. Any ideas? - Freechild 06:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I think an article on the Omaha Housing Authority comes first. Also, the houses on Florence Boulevard are among the oldest in town [1] (I've done some repairs on a couple, myself). For the most part, Omaha has avoided "projects" in favor of encouraging ownership of single family homes, sometimes to the detriment of neighborhoods (for instance, perhaps, the Miami Heights development (the opposite of project housing, eh). In any case, I don't know anything about projects. But the Sienna Francis House and maybe the Sacred Heart Hope Center do a lot of housing work. Hmm, strange answer to a housing question, eh. Oh, btw, do you have access to JSTOR and lexus-nexus, etc? If you don't, let me know if you ever need me to look up sources or send you an article or two. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Negative on the JSTOR - wish I had that. Seems like every good mention is locked up in there. I've only got educational databases that mostly don't have history in them. RE: housing, I'm specifically looking for the Logan Fontenelle Projects and for Hilltop. Also, do you have any scoop on the Great Plains Black Museum? Is it shut down? I'll reveal to you that I'm no longer in the neighborhood, so I don't really have anyway to find out... all their web trails come up dead: email doesn't work, phone #s disconnected, and the last news I've found is that there was a renovation planned 2 yrs ago... Is it closed now? Because that would have been the gold mine. Any help is appreciated. And add your $.2 here, if you want to. - Freechild 06:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

And since I'm sharing my "wishlist" with you, what I am really looking for is information on the tunnels in the hillside along Florence Blvd. You know those woods? There's old tunnels up in those cliffs, which I heard were either for freed slaves back, back in the day, or moonshining in the 1920s. Either way, I can't find anything online! - Freechild 06:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems you have lexus nexus, though, and that is good. Also, check out the Omaha Reader, its going to have some good material. On the GPBM, for instance, here is a nice up-to-date article. I don't know anything about the tunnels, but I'll see what I can do. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 11:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I've revised the NO template dramatically, and added significant content. Let me know what you think. - Freechild 20:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the new one is nicer; I don't see many cities with huge, comprehensive templates like the old one, not to mention neighborhoods. The information in the old one is accessible through categories, and much of it is linked in the article already. The old one was nice in that it showed off all the work you've done. I have to say that I liked the old one for that reason, if nothing else. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 00:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, thanks... I would like to create a list of North Omaha articles, but I don't know if that's copasetic. Anyhow, I figure this one will make for an easier navigation. - Freechild 01:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC) reply

This morning I wrote Omaha Star and Mildred Brown, and decided to do List of articles related to North Omaha, Nebraska. - Freechild 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Cool, I was going to say be WP:BOLD with respect to creating that list, so... Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Recent add'tns include Technical High School (Omaha, Nebraska), Native Omaha Days and St. John's African Methodist Episcopal Church. Any additional info on either would be great. Thanks Smmurphy. - Freechild 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thanks for the message and sorry about the delay in replying. Here is the text of the article, which was deleted because of notability concerns. If you wish to challenge the speedy deletion please let me know.

{{Mergeto|Omaha Police Department|date=September 2006}} '''Tariq Al-Amin''' is an 25 year police veteran in the [[Omaha Police Department]] in [[Omaha, Nebraska|Omaha]], [[Nebraska]]. He is president of Nebraskans for Justice. He is controversial for his outspoken views on race relations in Omaha. He helped get actor [[Danny Glover]] involved in the [[Rice/Poindexter Case]], an issue involving two former Black Panther Party members in jail for killing Omaha Police officer Larry Minard. ==Rucker Case== On September 11, 2003 30 year old Officer [[Jason Tye Pratt]] pulled a vehicle over at 10:30 p.m. for speeding and erratic driving. When 21 year old Albert Rucker pulled over, he got out of his vehicle and fled the scene. Pratt pursued Rucker on foot to an open field, where Rucker shot him in the head at close range with a 45 caliber handgun. Rucker then engaged backup officers in a shootout after which he was wounded when police returned fire. Both men died soon after. At a memorial service for Albert Rucker, Bishop William Barlowe offered Pratt's family a check for $100 to add to the Pratt Family Assistance Fund in the name of Rucker's children. During the memorial service Rucker, Barlowe said, "We have two sets of kids who will be aligned forever because of this incident." Omaha Police Officer Tariq Al-Amin, while hosting the [[cable access television]] show Protecting the Village (on his off duty time), angrily reacted, stating "This would be my gift to the Rucker children," while brandishing a straight razor. "When you get old enough, come get it and cut Barlowe's throat for doing something like that in your name." Pratt had a reputation for being "an aggressive officer," and some in the black Omaha community felt that Barlowe's actions were inflamitory. [http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uFqdsvpI5bAJ:www.blackomahaonline.com/Editorials/barlowe.asp+%22Tariq+Al-Amin%22+omaha&hl=en] After the program was reviewed by Police Chief Thomas Warren, he terminated Al-Amin with the justification that Al-Amin threatened Barlowe. Al-Amin, citing his [[First Amendment]] rights appealed to the City Personnel Board, and with backing and support of the Omaha Chapter of the [[NAACP]], the [[Coalition Against Injustice]], [[Black Men United]], and [[Rev. Al Sharpton]]'s [[National Action Network]]. Al-Amin was reinstated by the personnel board on February 26, 2004. Al-Amin was given the maximum suspension without pay allowed by the contract with the police union. He also was required to publicly apologize before being allowed to return to work. ==Reference== http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/2876153/detail.html -- kingboyk 09:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding Tariq

Smmurphy, is there a certain amount of this article or of this that should be located somewhere in the North Omaha diaspora of WP articles? I am not hesitant to address these situations for what they really are... but would like some local guidance about that. - Freechild 13:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure. I don't think I can add much more to OPD without being making the article even more slanted against OPD, which the article really doesn't need. The OPD does do some great and important things, so if we are going to add more about their problems, we really should try to do something about its tone. As for adding it to your list, I'm not sure what your asking, but if you want it on the list, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be fine. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 00:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

My next contribution to "WikiProject Omaha" is to write the article entitled Racial Tension in Omaha, Nebraska, based off the Timeline of Racial Tension in Omaha. I plan to use the above text in the article, or some parts therein. Any thoughts? - Freechild 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Make sure you have a good article before you create it in the mainspace, as it might be an AfD candidate. I'll think about it some more. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You voted to "deep" the List of Chinese Americans article. Usedup 04:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

oops, meant keep. thanks. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 04:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You should probably consider adding the Omaha busing info, if relevant, to Civil Rights Movement in Omaha, Nebraska. - Freechild 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice with the aforementioned article. I think that both the info on Tariq and Omaha busing should be brought into this article. - Freechild 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The Tariq al-Amin info was merged to the Omaha Police Department page, but really only his "slit throat" quote. The rest of the information I gathered way back when is above in my talk page. I'm not sure how the slit throat quote fits in to the civil rights article. al-Amin as an activist probably does, but I haven't looked him up separate from the Bishop Barlowe incident. I'll look him up on Lexis Nexis, and we'll see. In the meantime, I'll work on getting together a busing section for the Omaha and the civil rights pages soon. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the idea for the NO Info box. It lives! - Freechild 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

{{North Omaha}}

Wow, looks good. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 18:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Africa. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Belovedfreak 20:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your invitation. I had the project on my watchlist, and I'll add my name now. Hopefully I can get back into editing articles of interest to the project. I don't know if the scope of the project is too large, so by adding my name, I am saying, "I'm around," rather than, "I will get involved with all (or even most) of the collaborations and what not." But I do intend on keeping an eye on what is going on, and helping out where I can. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for putting up the Vavrina article. Excellent people with spectacularly notable works are the soul of WP - not to mention North O. Its so great to see this effort grow out... - Freechild 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I did Brenda Council too, although she deserves better. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought you might, at the least, add Tariq to the new... Timeline of Racial Tension in Omaha, Nebraska. - Freechild 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Sm - Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been out of town. I guess if I had to choose I would choose the Allais paradox. I think it's a little more central, as Ellsberg is usually seen to illustrate the failure of one type of response to Allais. I'm mostly an outside observer of the individual choice literature, so my opinion shouldn't count for much :) --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, as I said, I was mostly asking to delay writing it up, which your delay aided nicely. I should be back to full-ish speed after this weekend. Also, as I'll be citing explanations for both, it isn't too important which I pick, and I haven't bothered think about it hard enough to make a decision. When I saw you were "watching" one of the articles or something like that, I figured I could ask for your opinion, too. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 04:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Sm,

You really helped me to think about what to do with this article. You're right that simply because the concept is out there and notable there is room for an article on the subject. If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss a little bit of how the article might look right here rather than get into a fight elsewhere before I'm sure which way to go. I'd like your thoughts, if you don't mind. (I'm still not sure I want to get into this without some assurance that I'm not going to be overwhelmed by people pushing a point.)

I'm now thinking that the top section, to be NPOV, should say something like "Allegations that the United States has conducted "state terrorism" have been made by ... This is disputed by .... Many of the governments, groups and people making the allegations have been considered unreliable by ... and governments such as Cuba that have made the allegations have themselves been accused of lying and terrorizing their own people....

From there, the article could go on to report on the most prominent allegations made, with sourcing from all sides and balance. I think we'd have to have a good working definition on "state terrorism" early on to avoid constant problems later. The word "terrorism" may be problematic because to my mind it means sowing fear in a populace rather than just committing atrocities on it, and I'm not sure if that's really the allegation made, but the definition really comes from those who use the word.

If you look down the first dozen or so of the footnotes (if I remember rightly) you find Granma, the Cuban propaganda rag, something called the Workers World Newsletter (or something like that) and eventually a few news articles that report on what some Cuban or other said. All of this is fine in context.

Sm, this is a lot of work. I think we need some support before we go in. As long as people agree to pay some attention and be fair, I'd be happy to go in with a contingent from The Michael Moore Fan Club and take my chances. But if there's no pledge from anyone to try to be fair and to pay attention, we're up the proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle and all the work we'd do would be for nothing. Your thoughts? And can we keep the discussion on this talk page or some other fixed spot? I'll put this on my watch list and wait to hear from you. Noroton 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You have my support. I'll push for more forgiving language in the lead than your sample, but fundamentally we are on the same page there (my idea would be to include a sentence "These allegations are made because of resentment for the United States efforts to define what is legal foreign affairs policy in a way that is often at odds with the ideas of other bodies, including the ICC." and to keep the names of scholars, foreign leaders, and countries levying the charges out of the lead (but to feature those names later, as well as the reasons their critiques are discredited, of course)).

I also agree with the problems of the word terrorism, but its use might be unavoidable. There should almost be a WP wide repository of definitions for charged words like this, so that we can be consistent and use WP policy to back up our definition. Thirdly, we do need to get rid of citations of what are basically propaganda magazines. Certainly Noam Moore has said something about any case of US "terrorism" imaginable, and in a source that is universally distributed, and probably published by highly reputable publishers. Citations need to be from sources with better reputability.

(A note about strategy) As for being a lot of work, I think that the key in the compromise with radical WP editors is to avoid discussing facts, but rather to push for sources, and to expend your energy on putting facts and accusations into context, not removing POV. We can remove things in a few weeks when we've changed the article so fundamentally that the more radical statements don't really fit anymore. A similar problem comes up in, for instance, the Black Panther Party article, where Horowitz gets more play than he deserves. Letting extremists fight over it just causes the article to be unstable, and prevents other editors from feeling comfortable advancing the article. The BPP article is much more stable now, with Horowitz accusations mentioned, but in the footnotes we are open with how he is viewed (I'm not suggesting that all POV problems are solved there, just that things are stable). I know that this still leaves some POV in the form of undue weight, but anyone reading the BPP article will be perfectly capable of seeing what 1000s of right wingers say via Horowitz, while seeing that 1000s of left wingers discredit him. Anyway, what I'm saying is that my goal in a case like this is to try to get stability, not perfect NPOV. (full disclosure: if it isn't obvious, I'm personally generally on the left).

::sigh:: I've spent more time thinking about my responses than thinking about how to change the article. Maybe tomorrow. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, I picked up some books from the library this afternoon. William Perdue and Michael Stohl have some stuf fon political and state terrorism that is useful, while Western State Terrorism is a collection of left leaning authors gathered by editor Alexander George. I'll try to clean up a couple sections based on them this evening. Do you want to bring up changing the lead on the talk page first? Should I? Or should we just be bold, and see what happens. As weak (from any perspective, I think) as the lead is now, I almost lean towards being bold, since we wouldn't be removing much of value. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm going to have to back out. I've got a soul-destroying fight going on over at the talk page for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and I don't think I can handle any more Armageddons at this point. Looking at the deletion discussion, I see no hope for this Let's-All-Damn-the-United-States article. If any of the "keep" people who supposedly think the article should be improved were in fact serious, we'd have seen them react differently by now to my comments, yours and the whacknuts who have been dropping by to vote "keep" and tell us all they see absolutely nothing wrong at all. I give up. If you want to go on and can find others, I'll be happy to be one of the foot soldiers in any consensus-building, but I can't fight a two-front war. Sorry. Noroton 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (fixed the link -- 22:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

You know what? What I'd really like to see some time is a "Politics Neutrality Project" that would include people of all ideologies so long as they are committed to keeping politics articles NPOV and who will work together to reform or remove articles that don't follow Wikipedia NPOV policy. One day ... Noroton 22:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't join such a project. Too forward thinking. One of the parts I love most about WP is the tension: half finished articles - written one day but never returned to, articles written in bits and spurts by different hands and different points of view, virulent fights which turn to dust when the workweek starts or the semester ends, and the crazies, the professors, the junior high students, the English as a third language set, the retired, and the college students all working together. I'll try to do something about the article, I might only work on it for a couple days, and I'll be traveling this weekend (Easter, eh). But if I may, I'd like to ask you to have a look when I'm on the next plateau, if only to tell me what more you think can be done. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestions regarding my editing practice. This is a learning process, isn't it? I look forward to any advice you may share with me as I continue editing in the future. - Freechild 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't see this message until just now, sorry. I should tell you that if you have any advice for me, I'd be happy to hear it as well. In any case, this is as much a community as an encyclopedia, and to be an effective editor, you have to nurture the community as well, or edit conflicts will be too much to deal with. Your Omaha edits (the you that I see) are usually pretty non-controversial, so I don't see the tensions you deal with much. But I'm impressed by your sincerity, and I you've taught me a good deal with your edits. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 00:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Its strange, primarily because after that initial push-back about the North Omaha article there has been no further commentary from anyone about any of the content I've created re: Omaha. Its interesting to me that my youth-focused content has been so difficult... Ghettoization takes many forms, eh? Let me know what you think of the coming non-controversy at Racial Tension in Omaha, Nebraska. - Freechild 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Speaking of your youth work on WP, I get a kick seeing you at Paulo Freire and I'm wondering if you know anything about the "Cool rich kids" movement, which I don't think has an article yet. Anyway, about the RTiO article, it looks ok to me. Before you bring it to mainspace, though, you need to work on the lead. Most trouble starts when the lead is bad. I'm sure you've looked at WP:LEAD, but read it again maybe. If your lead is clear about the article, why it fits into WP, etc, it is unlikely that an article will be controversial. If your lead is brief and assumes that editors will care about the content, you might run into trouble. Consider this AfD, and how the article changes after this diff. I'm not sure that the article won't be deleted, but I have some suspicion that the new lead totally changes how the article is seen. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I see you started Category:Landmarks in Omaha, Nebraska. You might consider working from this list to fill that cat in. Good luck with that. - Freechild 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

This brings up an issue about the designation "landmark", which I'll mention at the list as well. My idea is that this tells us what belongs in the landmarks category, and other things should be categorized more specifically by what they are (Healthcare in Omaha, Schools in Omaha as a subcategory of Education in Omaha, etc).

This brings up an issue I've been wondering about, do we need to say Omaha, Nebraska in all of these titles? Albuquerque and Grand Rapids have examples of both including state and not. My feeling is that a lot of these should be moved, if you at all agree, maybe we should bring this up at a couple articles or at the Nebraska WikiProject, so let me know. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the notion of a landmark is largely a social thing: The settlers rolling past Chimney Rock didn't need a commission telling them what mattered. However, by way of objectivity, you are probably right to have a "solid" point of reference, i.e. the Omaha commission. I'd say that anything that is obvious or that has a citation saying its a landmark can be added to the list. Then, the confusing question: What about Landmarks in North Omaha, Nebraska? Should that simply be linked to at the top of this page, or integrated completely? - Freechild 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Of course it is social, but its a citations thing. No one would argue that these are all places in Omaha, and mostly old places in Omaha. Under the title landmark, however, there is a greater need for citations. For instance, is the Hi tree a landmark [2] [3]? Was it before it was added to the historic register of trees? If it is a landmark, then do we need to list all of the heritage trees from all years? I'm thinking that heritage trees might someday get their own subarticle in a list of places in Omaha, as would Parks, Hospitals and whatever else isn't on the list of official landmarks. In a case where an article has a subarticle, the link at the top or a link in the lead is probably best. I like how you have it now. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

This brings up an issue I've been wondering about, do we need to say Omaha, Nebraska in all of these titles? Albuquerque and Grand Rapids have examples of both including state and not. My feeling is that a lot of these should be moved, if you at all agree, maybe we should bring this up at a couple articles or at the Nebraska WikiProject, so let me know. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding the titles, I'd say no. I've gotten into the habit of "taking" both names with redirects, ala Kountze Park. I have run into some issues by not doing it, such as Holy Name Church - but there is no other St. John's African Methodist Episcopal Church. - Freechild 18:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't quite understand your answer. Are you saying "no, such a change isn't a good idea," or "no, we don't need to always say Nebraska in the titles"? Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I read the question differently. I was saying that when we're writing articles, i.e. "Kountze Park", they don't always need to be "Kountze Park (Omaha, Nebraska". Regarding your question, I'm largely indifferent. If I was randomly searching WP for parks in Omaha, I'd likely type in "Parks in Omaha". So, I'd go w/o the NE reference. That much said, I think it looks better to include the state - but the state is largely irrelevant to the rest of the world; could you tell me the state Salzburg is in? Probably not - but we both know its in Austria. Yeah, there ya go - I'd drop the NE. - Freechild 19:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sounds right to me. I brought this up as a question at WP:NAME to be sure about policy, though. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for bringing that fork to my attention. best regards, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

My bad, I wrote that before noticing we both like to keep conversations in one place, but chalk it up to extra gratitude. cheers, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 06:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

One of the editors on that AfD just flagged my comments with a "stop sign" icon [4]. Was that appropriate? Thanks, Jim Butler^{( talk)} 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I saw that. Its no big deal, some people don't like what they see as canvassing, I guess I understand their sentiment. The stop sign seems harsh, but I'm sure the point isn't to stifle community building or anything. I'll put a note in the AfD justifying my bringing the issue to your notice, and the flagging doesn't mean that your opinion won't be heard or anything. The point of AfD is consensus building, not voting, so your reasons (which the closing admin will read) matter more than canvassing allegations. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but I did not appreciate your slightly clumsy rewrite of this article - after all, why remove a useful reference, however debatable the political issues involved, if the annihilators cry out for removal of the article because they feel that too few references point to the subject's non-existence? So do not feel offended if I restored my version, until further notice = removal of the AfD threat and better copy, this should remain. Or do you want to contribute to a useful article's disappearance? After all, there is a political issue involved with many people from the Balcans, so there is no means of avoiding them. As far as one can trust one's own impressions, Zlatko Krasni is no doubt a very amiable and totally unaggressive person; this has, of course, influenced my assessment of his work. I met him twice and took a close look, as you may imagine under the circumstances. To my mind, he rates an entry to wikipedia because he is a good poet and a good person from a very complicated part of the world indeed. ( Klaus rabe 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)) reply

Thank you for stopping by. I do wish you best of luck here at WP, but please don't take things so personally. The users at the AfD are not out to get you, they are merely trying to protect WP by making sure it follows certain rules ( WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:ATT, etc). If comments do not pass that, there is some trouble leaving them on WP. Right now it seems Zlatko Krasni passes notability, as defined at WP:NOT, but WP is not the place to discuss politics (unavoidable or not) unless the discussion can be cited. Best of luck, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I was just looking at the articles linking to Fort Omaha and came across your article-in-progress. Go! That is a great topic, and one that can/should be expanded in a lot of ways. I hope you bring it live soon, there's some things I want to add to it right away. Interestingly though, in my own research I did note that the troops at the Fort were noted for being called into quell the 1919 riots; I read that was the 1st time in US history the US military were used as a police force on US soil. Then, when reading about the 60s riots I noticed that the Nat'l Guard was called in on at least 3 separate occasions; where are those troops based out of? Hopefully they aren't at Fort Omaha, too, right? I mean, what better way to impose segregation than to have a resident military force in the neighborhood... But what a great note to make in your Crime in Omaha article. Looking forward to reading and sharing. Oh, and some of those crime citations are here. - Freechild 06:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, you are perceptive. I started that article in March based on our discussion at Talk:Omaha, Nebraska#Incident in North Omaha (you can even see my original link to it, we were at odds a bit back then). As I mentioned, its based on the DC article of the same title (some of the DC stuff I didn't remove). The article is made up mostly of stuff from other WP pages, although this isn't the right way of working the article, I think. IMO, it shouldn't be a list of notable crimes in Omaha, but rather about crime, with notable crimes used only to illustrate trends. Doing this right is hard in the current WP environment, because new articles aren't accepted as easily. If I write an article like this and don't cite it well, its likely to get trimmed a lot or deleted. The problem with a trimmed article is that it looses its form and is more likely to turn into a list of notable crimes. So when talking about the trends, I have to cite things. Thus, it is in my user space, and also thus I haven't touched it since its creation in March.

If you want, you should feel free to edit it as if it were your own - if I don't like something, I'll let you know just as I would on any other page. You should also feel free to add any cited notable crimes you think are appropriate. Although I don't want the article to be decontextualized like that eventually, doing that now will allow us to figure out which notable crimes fit into the context of an article about crime in Omaha. Just now, I added some sections to give the article some of that structure. Thanks for the reminder. Hopefully I get the article into good enough shape that I feel comfortable bringing it live. If your threshold is lower than mine, go ahead and tell me, and we can bring it live sooner. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 09:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

My threshold must be lower, because like you've constantly reminded me, we've got to be bold. That much said, I understand your point about decontextualizing the normalcy of crime in Omaha, I think that the sensationalization of the few particularly heinous pieces that float to the top might serve as a reasonable starting point for the article. I will definitely take you up on your offer, and we can proceed together. Cool. In other news, perhaps related, I've gone live with Racial Tension in Omaha, Nebraska. Different from you, I have discovered that as long as these contentious topics are well-cited they can largely stand without comment. I've had that happen now with several N.O. topics, as well as some that deserve to be commented on but aren't, like this. Surviving the fires (like what you've seen me partake in) and getting those types of "wins" only emboldens me more... - Freechild 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I just went and reread Talk:Omaha, Nebraska#Incident in North Omaha, and checked out your links there. I agree and disagree about your observations on the articles you like. Crime in Sydney would be more properly labeled "Historic Crime in Sydney", while Crime in Washington, D.C. would better be labeled "Current Crime in Washington, D.C." The threat of the DC article is the it takes away the context that the crimes occur within, namely the history of the place, its economics, and its culture. Likewise, the Sydney article takes away the present, de-emphasizing the current crimes within the city. I find that both articles emphasize the sensational crimes though, by focusing on violent crimes and attaching crimes to race and ethnicity. That is problematic, and definitely something I would work against in any article related to on crime in Omaha... That much said, when was the last case of white-collar crime in Omaha high-profile enough to get a mention in the media? And all of that said, fretting about getting it "just right" could prevent the article from going live and thwart our collective good intentions; better to get it up and let others respond to it - after its a little more "ready" to go up. - Freechild 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just because I won't let the prospect of a great article go... I want to make sure you know about the new articles I've created on Tom Dennison, Sporting District and Little Italy. They all have content that could contribute to a sensationalized version of Crime in Omaha that I'd love to see... – Freechild ( BoomCha) 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I have decided to bring this article live at your previous invitation. I have left all info that needs expanded upon and added to on your previous page, although I'm going to move that to the new page's talk page. Thanks for starting this and letting me add to it. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡) 04:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply

In other, unrelated topics, I have cleaned up two articles extensively that I would request your input on: Racial Tension in Omaha, Nebraska and Civil Rights Movement in Omaha, Nebraska. I am working to clean the latter up enough to be considered for featured article, so any input you can provide would be sincerely appreciated. - Freechild 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Both lack very much context (not historical context, but real, contemporary context), which is a frequent issue on WP. It is hard to put something into context without running into NPOV, but just reporting events makes for a pretty sad article. This is very similar to the discussion we had above, and perhaps you and I see this differently. While thinking about this, I remembered a recent blog entry I had read on CJR, and from which I wrote a draft of an essay. Let me know if this makes sense, I'll try to be more specific later, but I'd like to get a feel for your position on this question first. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree with your concern, and your previous points about the decontextualization of history. That's an evident threat in any history, all of which from any perspective is always political. For what its worth, I think NPOV is a farce, for the most part; WP:ATT is a much better guideline, primarily because it addresses the reality that it isn't about truth, per se. That much said, I must admit that my own proximity to the present realities of Omaha is a little too fresh to be dispassionate about the writing. Too many friends, too many bad days... all that. So I don't know that I'm the "right" person to write about today. That much said, I also don't believe that WP should be an exercise in timidity or even caution; instead, it is about immediacy and even a bit of recklessness. So I stuck some 1/4 baked articles on line: well-cited, but absent current events. They are stilted. But they are now existent, and in a place like WP I thoroughly believe articles like what I've been writing are better off existing in a sub-par fashion rather than not at all. It then becomes the challenge of others to breath life into them, in any fashion. I would like to hear more about what you think though - I know I've got a lot to learn in this process from others. Thanks. - Freechild 06:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Smmurphy, I do not entirely feel qualified to answer your question. You will see on my talk page that Lupo ( talk · contribs) has more adequately answered it. I apologise I could not be of more help, and I hope Lupo's advice helps out. If you need any more advice, I'm sure Lupo would offer it on my, your, or his or her talk page. -- Iamunknown 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject World music The goal of WikiProject World music is to improve the quality and quantity of information about World music available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject World music as a group does not prefer any particular type of World music, but prefers that all World music traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

-- TimNelson 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I just looked, and it's mostly the same; your version appears to be a little longer, but is otherwise word-for-word in most places. I think the chief problem is that it reads like an essay ("concluding remarks", numbered lists, arguments, ect), and it still appears to have been copied from somewhere (correct me if I'm wrong, though). -- InShaneee 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. It's written by Burns (who is the most often cited in the article), who wrote it as if WP were some sort of "encyclopedia sociologica." I saw a couple other (shorter) articles of his on AfD, which I wikified. They remained, and he asked that I take a look at his deleted article. We'll see how it goes. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Oops, I dumped the text of Cherokee in one of my sandboxes, where fair use images are not allowed. Thankfully a bot fixed it, as you can see. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Image:CNCourthouse.jpg

Hello, Smmurphy. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:CNCourthouse.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Smmurphy/Stream of conscious. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Image:CNSeal.jpg

Hello, Smmurphy. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:CNSeal.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Smmurphy/Stream of conscious. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Smmurphy, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:OPD Badge.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Smmurphy/Crime in Omaha, Nebraska. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Please note in my talk page my reply to you regarding vandalism of the Steve Biko entry. I don't vandalize pages, and I despise vandals. I do my best to make minor edits to pages to clean them up when I find they either have simple spelling/grammar errors and try to prevent vandalism when I run across it. I don't know where the misunderstanding of vandalism comes from as you can see in the diffs that it was I who cleaned up the vandalism. I explain a little more on my talk page User:Symbioid User talk:Symbioid

EDIT: Thanks for the reply. Sorry I came off so harshly. I appreciate your attempts at preventing vandalism. I just didn't want to be unjustly accused. Once again, thanks.

You were completely justified, it was my fault entirely. Thanks, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 13:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Smmurphy. Could you please have a look at the link and see if you can help? Some articles are needing more references in order to get released. You can leave your comments at the page as well. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you just looking to have some references added or are you asking that we concentrate on expanding/rewriting/getting to B class one or two articles on this list? Thanks, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

It is up to you of course ;) although referencing would be enough. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I think I get it, umm, maybe. This is a list of articles that do not yet meet WP:1.0/Criteria, but hopefully can get there, right? What does Sierra Leone Civil War (Start, but not actually quite good; important) mean? Do you have any particular requests? Sorry if I look dumb. Thanks, ; ) Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hiya - No worries: Highwater squirted a lot of ink trying to defend his chosen identity! By the way, Bruchac is already in the list, but I think it's somehow got out of alphabetical order so will try to fix that in the next day or two. All best, and thanks for some great edits to many of my watchlisted articles over the past week or so! Vizjim 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, thanks for putting that into the Highwater article. I certainly didn't know anything about the subject, and just stumbled upon the ref and thought I'd try to help based on the request at the project. Good to know someone is watching over me, as I'm more of a consumer of NA lit than anything. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 18:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that up - I don't know if I would have ever found it. Its great, too, because I have some other slavery-related finds that need to go there. Thanks- oh, and its good to hear from you again. - Freechild 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

No prob, thanks for your additions. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thought you might know more about this than me, or at least a more "well-rounded" perspective. - Freechild 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hmm, I tried to change the lead a little so it is less likely to be read as inflammatory, but I still don't really like it. I'm not sure if this is really the article for me to edit too much. If you want my opinion on the subject, I'd be happy to discuss it by email (I was going to email you, but your email isn't enabled). Sorry, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 04:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I really appreciate the roundedness of your perspective. I am positive that your considerations regarding your article on Crime in Omaha are applicable here - positive - especially with respect to revealing more than "flash points" in history. Unfortunately, those are all I can find online - sensationalism. Thanks for at least trying on that lead; anything you do on this article is much appreciated. In other news, I think I resolved Landmarks in Omaha, Nebraska. A lot of redlinks, but those are open doors, right? - Freechild 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship and for your confidence in my abilities. The RfA was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 07:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. Yours was very easy to support. Best of luck, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 13:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Smmurphy, first, allow me to thank you warmly for your most kind words; tho I feel undeserving, since everyone seems more open to dialog at this point, and I don't think it's just because I involved myself at the discussion :) Seriously tho, I really appreciate you took the time to express your position, and did so in a patient, comprehensive and solid way. I'm advancing on a draft for a solution, and since you'll be away these days, I'll explain the basic outlines to you by mail. I believe you'll be returning in time to comment on them if you're back by Tuesday (you know these things must be done calmly, and leaving discussion open for a few days to build consensus), but I'd like to get your input on my ideas before you leave. Again, thank you for your kind words, and don't forget to check your mail ;) Love, Phaedriel - 03:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear S, I'd love to have your input at the debate there; since you have researched on the subject, and Proabivouac has struck his proposal out, is it possible for you to use those quotes as part of a new proposal under your name? I'd rather keep the debate on his proposal closed since he has withdrawn it. Love, and thanks for the help and your input, Phaedriel - 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, sorry about that. I don't know if I'm exactly comfortable proposing a solution (I've done a good bit proposing the conflict, already). In the first attempt at compromise (after Ryan's page protection), I proposed the solution of adding the Cherokee identity section to precisely delineate the two "types" of Cherokee. This received some support, and a note of caution (from Proabivouac, I think), and Jeffreys general point was repeated as an opposing comment. Since putting the section in, I ended up elongating it beyond reason before it was cut back. But it hasn't been generally accepted by Jeffrey, and now we have the current round of mediation. Right now I don't know if I support any proposal, except that all statements where it is necessary be cited by reliable sources. I'll try to add to the discussion where I can, and I believe my general position is clear. But I don't have a new proposal right now (nor do I fully stand by my old one, although I generally support the idea). Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 01:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for claryifing that, dear :) Seeing as we're once again reaching a dead end, I'll try to make a proposal of my own then, along the lines I discussed with you the other day. I can't thank you enough for your will to help here, S. Love, Phaedriel - 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

That would be wonderful, I look forward to it. For some reason, I feel like writing the following, as well:

As I mentioned earlier, the part of this I have a vested interest in is the acceptability of academic sources (with all proper reservations). As such, at times I enjoy the conflict, as it is so fundamental to what is going on, and how it turns out will in a big way shape at least how I see wikipedia. Many of my edits are on math and economics articles, where academics control quite a bit. When I stray into culture and society, I sometimes get bitten and sometimes I let the point go (I did earlier this year at State terrorism by the United States‎, and I left the article for greener pastures). This time I've decided to see it through, as the division between academic license and legal and personal feelings seemed a bit clearer. That is, it seemed easier to state my feelings in terms of WP policies. Plus, I've gotten the chance to learn a lot about an important heritage and the debates that surround it. Anyway, as I said in my most recent comment at the talk page, I'm sure I'll be happy however it turns out, especially if we end up with a clear solution which we can support with policy, and therefore will allow for us to create a stable Cherokee article (reverting what doesn't follow that policy) from which we can develop good side articles, etc. That sounds a bit corny, but I've come to realize that is my real goal in this debate. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 01:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

And an excellent point indeed, dear, which I encourage you to add to your Summary there if you deem appropriate, despite that I tentatively closed that section up for clarity purposes. I'll try and make my suggestions before your vacation to give you time to weigh in. Have a beautiful weekend! Phaedriel - 01:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. I'll be leaving Tuesday midday (US EST), but I'll hopefully have some access again starting Friday (and maybe earlier), and back to normal next Monday. Sometimes 60 hours is a lot of wikipedia time, and sometimes it isn't much. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Your edits and concerns are fine, dear S, so don't worry. That, however, is entirely between Jeffrey and you, so I will only express myself if needed. I've also addressed your previous concerns, in case you haven't seen my reply; please, feel free to comment on my reply. I'll be happy to try and cut dwon any rough edges as you believe appropriate in order to achieve a solution. Love, Phaedriel - 22:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, your reply did address my concerns, and I do support your proposal. I'm still a bit nervous !voting there, lest the outside observers see consensus and leave the talk page before Jeffrey and I have dealt more fully with our disagreement. I'm hoping that the diffs I provided are addressed by Jeffrey, and possibly by anyone else, but I have a feeling that I won't be satisfied. We'll see. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

AfD 66.142.91.213 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This is related to the article on State terrorism and the United States. I'm already aware of this nomination. Thanks, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 19:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I would like to notify you about this merger proposal regarding the expected utility hypothesis. Expert opinions welcome. -- B. Wolterding 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Smmurphy, dear, it's great to see you again! :) The last days have been kinda rough on me, and I have been unable to do much work around; hopefully things will settle down again soon and I'll be able to resume the work on the points of our mutual interests. I've been planning to email you for a couple of days, and in fact, I saved a draft in the middle of it; so please, do check your mail tomorrow, please?
As for the other matters you comment to me, rest assured I'll look into them as soon as my human capacities permit. I've read the discussion at the WP:IPNA Talk page, and it looks very interesting to me. Please, give me a few hours, and I'll get back to you. Thank you, and again, it's great to talk you :) Love, Phaedriel - 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No prob, we're all volunteers here. I do hope that everything goes well for you, having seen on your talk that your girl has been sick and all. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank your for the welcome, but something isn't right. I changed the page and the previous user keeps changing it claiming that my changes and edits are unsourced and not cited. I change it again and this person keeps editing removing everything. Then I look at my informantion and this person put "

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Johnc1 ( talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

" in my information and in the talk section of my page. He's deleted damm near all the edits made including all the information I put on the page that's recent and the history references. I don't know what a "sock puppet" is or who "JohnC1" is, but all of this stuff he's putting on the page and what he's doing to my page.....isn't that harassment?

Issue under discussion at Talk:Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 13:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I just removed another of your reverts which placed defamatory and uncited materials into Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. WP:COI may apply to you since you seem to edit African American related articles and Freedmen controversies. Your dishonest edit summary was over the top. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

See continuing discussion at Talk:Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Thanks, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 13:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please note Mr. Merkey decided to complain about you to Admins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Stormshadows00

Seems the decent thing to do to let you know. -- Kebron 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

For your help and understanding it is because I care about the integrity of wikipedia that I was worked up over the deletion tag of the article.

and as you can see, i have started to create the pages, but i am hitting snags. the first one i looked up had info, but the others either had no website ^{[1] [2]}, or there had been a page made and then it was deleted ^[3], so i am having a hard time. =). But i will relink if you wish. Best Wishes, Ono 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw you reverted an anonymous user's edit to Robert Mugabe. In the edit summary you said "rvv." While I can understand why one would assume his edit had been vandalism, it was actually correct. The source used in the article is wrong. I went ahead and reverted. Perspicacite 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot, you are right. I added a ref for the new number. Best, Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 03:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Heh, I see you've decided to out-do me. Looks great. Thanks again. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

yes i have been hoping someone can help me cite my article sources...everything written down as a source has a specific reference in the article itself -- Dylan Davies 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Replied at User talk:Wikiaddict8962. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This is a bit off-topic for that page so I'm replying here. Yep I've read up on the controversy and know about that sort of wishful thinking (and/or cashing in, unfortunately) and I don't feel I'm qualified to get into the dispute itself (I'm 100% Anglo), but if someone is going to dispute some else's Native ancestry, they still have to back it up with citations per Wikipedia policy. The issue the editor I was speaking of has is with Rita Coolidge and Douglas Blue Feather, and I have no problem with someone debunking their ancestry if they can back it up with facts (or at least communicate with the other editors). Katr67 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

i am beginnning to work on these sources and incorporating them into my article, but please give me time thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC) reply

If you didn't notice, the article doesn't contain a single reference to human trafficking today, which is clearly part of, well, " Slavery in the United States". I know you've worked extensively on this article, so please awareness.

If you didn't notice, the article doesn't contain a single reference to human trafficking today, which is clearly part of, well, " Slavery in the United States". I know you've worked extensively on this article, so please awareness. 71.251.77.196 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Frank Cordaro, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{ db-author}} to the top of Frank Cordaro.

What it needs, is one or two references to articles about him. First add them, then remove the tag. DGG ( talk) 04:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello ! I'm not sure about the best way to contact you, so I will use this page. I'm aiming to work on the link between probability measure, capacity, and fuzzy sets/fuzzy logic. The problem is that I'm completely unexperimented in this field, and I'm consequentely looking for good references dealing with this topic. More precisely, I would like to find a paper about the bridge between fuzzy sets/fuzzy probabilities, and capacities. If you have some time to spend, I would really appreciate some help ! Kamixave ( talk) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The February 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 20:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 07:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The March 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 03:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The May 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply