Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UBeR (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 6 November 2007 (→Global warming). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Driftwoodzebulin, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Cheers, Tewfik 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the million/billion error on the Earl Amherst page, with 13 billion pounds they could've probably just bought out Burma outright in 1823 :) Karajanis 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1812 Casualties

Hi Driftwood.. Did a quick Google to look up causauties.

1. Geocities cites 5,279 British and 6,765 American without disease; 8,600 and 11,300 with disease. Neither number includes Canadian or American militias.
2. US Civil War Center cites 6,765 American casualties (not including disease).
3. Veteran Museum cites the same 6,765 US casualties.

Don't know if that helps a bit. Rather annoying not having casualties by diesase, and even more annoying that there are no numbers for Militias or Native Americans. Esseh 21:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I found those too, but the article had a total for both sides of the war of 1812 and that is what I am hoping to verify. 16,000 total casualties is higher than I would have expected.Zebulin 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea, but the sources seem to concur. Esseh 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One other interesting quote, from a US source:

The seat of anti-British fever was in the Northwest and the lower Ohio Valley, where the land-hungry frontiersmen had no doubt that their troubles with the Indians were the result of British intrigue. Stories were circulated after every Indian raid of British Army muskets and equipment being found on the field. By 1812 the westerners were convinced that their problems could best be solved by forcing the British out of Canada.
While the western "war hawks" urged war in the hope of conquering Canada, the people of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi Territory entertained similar designs against Florida, a Spanish possession. The fact that Spain and England were allies against Napoleon presented the southern war hawks with an excuse for invading Florida. By this time, also, the balance of political power had shifted south and westward; ambitious party leaders had no choice but to align themselves with the war hawks, and 1812 was a Presidential election year. (Boldfacing mine, text from Center of Military History, U.S. Army).

Seems a reliable source. Esseh 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit more, from the same source:

The Strategic Pattern

The fundamental strategy was simple enough. The primary undertaking would be the conquest of Canada. The United States also planned an immediate naval offensive, whereby a swarm of privateers and the small Navy would be set loose on the high seas to destroy British commerce. The old invasion route into Canada by way of Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River led directly to the most populous and most important part of the enemy's territory. The capture of Montreal would cut the line of communications upon which the British defense of Upper Canada depended, and the fall of that province would then be inevitable. But this invasion route was near the center of disaffection in the United States, from which little local support could be expected. The west...,

Esseh 21:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

these are interesting finds but have you posted this to the war of 1812 talk page? I would think this may be of some value for improving the article but I'm not sure what kind of feedback you would like me to offer here. My interest in the article of late has been in verifying the total casualties on both sides and also finding more information about the diplomatic developments of the war.

for this new information I'd say the interesting follow up question is did these northwesterners just want the british expelled from canada or were they hoping to settle those canadian territories themselves?Zebulin 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on resolving issues on the Superpower page Daniel Chiswick 08:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me?

User: 128.227.43.42 is trying to get me blocked for the most petty reasons and saying I personally attacked him for saying he should sign in. You remeber on the superpower talk page that he insulted me and I need you as a witness, can you please back me up on here ]? User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your efforts on improving the quality of the Superpower article and ressolving issues in a professional and non-biased way

Empires

As someone who took part in the editing of List of largest empires, you might be interested in trying to help in this case. Thank you. PocketMoon 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Global warming

Hello there. I'm rather confused by your edits at global warming and even more confused by your edit summaries. I'm not sure what your new sentence is supposed to mean. Your sentence states, "but as of 2007 most national governments have not accepted any treaty obligations to control those emissions." Are you trying to make the point that the non-industrialized countries who have ratified the treaty have no obligation to reduce emissions? Then, in your edit summary, you write, "obligated countries emit less than half the GHGs so not misleading." Are you saying, of the 35-38 countries that are required to reduce emissions under the treaty, they only account for less than half the total emissions? If so, this document seems to say that they account for 61.6 percent of emissions from annex I countries. ~ UBeR 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

given space constraints it is no wonder you're confused :)

My second edit summary was in response to a revert of my efforts that had been summarized as "(Rv., misleading. Most _industrialized_ countries have, and they generate most CO2)". I replied that my edit is not misleading in that sense given that currently most of the worlds co2 emissions occur in countries that have not yet accepted treaty obligations to control their co2 emissions. Annex I includes countries that have not accepted treaty obligations (ie have not ratified the treaties and even have delcared no intention to do so). removing the US alone from annex I places the total at less than 45% of total anthropogenic co2 emissions. I hope that helped!Zebulin 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but these types of statements need to be sourced. Also, I'm not sure if this type of detail is necessary for the lead. Just as I opposed silly specifics about who is and who isn't a signatory or ratifier, I think this level of detail regarding the amount of emissions covered by the treaty ought to either be in the body (i.e. mitigation section) or left entirely in their respective articles. I therefore think it would be prudent to discuss this on the talk page beforehand. ~ UBeR 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)