Talk:Battle of Newton's Station

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Newton's Station article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

United States: Civil War / Military history Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	American Civil War portal This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Reverts of superfluous information

Please explain why you insist to add redundant information to this article. --91.10.57.119 (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --91.10.57.119 (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well why do you insist on deleting the notes section? --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING EMPTY!! --91.10.57.119 (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 users have reverted against you, don't you think you might be doing something wrong also stop shouting and swearing!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was empty because you deleted the only reference in the article. Maybe instead of violating policies, and arguing with multiple editors you should find a new reference for the article? - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguing"? WTF are you talking about, everybody but me avoided any discussion about this.

The section I removed was not about Battle of Newton's Station, AS I EXPLAINED IN MY COMMENT.

Well, I wouldn't know what it could be, since nobody explained shit. Also, this is not a democracy. --91.10.57.119 (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The removal itself

I don't see how the section you had removed was redundant. It was about the battle (or its aftermath). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading it in more detail, I agree. The removed section places the raid of Newtons Station in context during the larger raid. It could have possibly been reqorded a bit to make it more relevant, but shouldn't have been removed. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unusual (not to say redundant) to explain larger things withing smaller things' articles. Example: Grierson's Raid, where the Vicksburg Campaign is referenced, but not explained. Vicksburg Campaign, where the Civil War is referenced, but not explained. --91.10.57.119 (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't explain why you continuely deleted it and the notes section, if you stopped and waited maybe we would have discussed.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I explained that sections of the article do not belong to the article, and I show examples, and that still doesn't explain it? What more do you need?

There is evidence for the fact that everybody but me was trying to avoid a discussion.

(@Mike, these counter-factual accusation are what I call rude.) --91.10.41.121 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might be irrevelent but under your argument it should still be referenced, we cant do that with out a reference section!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have I called it "irrevelent"? That was a mistake then, "redundant" is a better description.

I don't mind notes (or references) in a Notes (or References) section, why would I? Just add the notes and the section. --91.10.41.121 (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you thought this would be a constructive way to continue the discussion? Why am I the one called rude? --91.10.41.121 (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]