Hey! I just wrote a little article on John Strachan, and I was wondering if you had anything to add to it...you seem like you would know more about him than me (from your contributions I would guess your BA had a lot more Canadian history involved than mine did...). Anyway, nice work all around, welcome to Wikipedia, etc etc! Adam Bishop 23:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look at the Strachan article, but don't know how much I can contribute. My pre-Confederation knowledge is spotty. HistoryBA 23:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks very much for your corrections to the WWII section of the Military history of Canada article, your words are better-chosen and more accurate than mine. That section and the rest of the article are both greatly in need of expansion, but it's good to see what is there being fine-tuned and improved. Cheers! Madmagic 21:05, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

In your recent edit of Canadian Senate, you said "more equal" didn't make any sense. Perhaps you didn't realise the Canadian Senate acts in about the same way as Animal Farm :) (sorry, I just had to say that). Telso 02:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. :) Krupo 02:14, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

And thank you for stepping in and fixing what had become a really bloated frankenparagraph at Warren Kinsella. Looking at your contribution history, I'd expect we'll meet again on a talk page sooner rather than later. -Joshuapaquin 02:45, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I made a significant effort to proof read the page, although i can see you made some good improvements(i'm still in the middle of reading them). I several LD's and i have problems seeing when there IS a problem on a screen (i have some difficulty still on paper...all my university stuff was proofed at least once by someone else, which is fine by the rules). Still i am sorry for the problems, and i am trying to improve on it...having a printer to print the text off in would help (just paste) however mine is broken and i don't have the funds for a new one at the moment. I do appreciate the effort you've made to make the work i put in more accessible to everyone---although i resever the right to disagree if i come across a new section still :-)--Marcie 19:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion...i hadn't thought of moving the text into the word processor--Marcie 13:19, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been using it today and your idea was very helpful and i would say successful. Thanks again!--Marcie 18:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))" with "((MultiLicensePD))". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)