User talk:HDLShrsmn

Welcome!

Hello, HDLShrsmn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :D HDLShrsmn (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, I'm GenQuest. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, United States Colored Troops, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello. i didn't provide any source, because one, i didn't see anything else in the lead getting sourced and two, the changes I added are already in the article, i just added it to the lead. HDLShrsmn (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
edit: my mistake. I didn't realize the summary i added to the lead was from another articel. adding relevant section to the page now. HDLShrsmn (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this has been addressed to you elsewhere, so I'm adding it here. First, welcome to Wikipedia! There is a community of editors interested in military history here, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. That is one of our more active wikiprojects, and if you ever have any related questions, feel free to bring them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I'm happy to help as well, so feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Back to the point from above, material in the lede section of an article doesn't have to be cited if it is cited in the body of the article (see MOS:LEAD).

Finally, I'm undoing your edits to the USCT article. That material is from Apotheker (1947), and I don't think the changes you made match that article. Also, if you copy material from one Wikipedia article to another, you should attribute your edit to the original editor or at least note what article you took the material from (see: WP:COPYWITHIN). Anyway, welcome and good luck! Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what i'm supposed to do then. I thought casualties were relevant information, as was their treatment by the Union and CSA. HDLShrsmn (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as for crediting the original editor in case of a future copying, i'll keep that in mind HDLShrsmn (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty and troop counts are probably relevant, but 179,000 for the total number of soldiers is not more accurate than 180,000, as Apotheker also adds in 7,000 officers, giving a total of a little over 186,000. That said, Apotheker is really quoting Dyer's compendium (1908), and flipping through the 1908 compendium, I don't see which page the officer number is from. I am also not aware off hand if there is a more recent reliable estimate, which might be preferred. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i can contend with that. but why remove everything then? i dont get the logic. why not remove whats incorrect, leave what's relevant? HDLShrsmn (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of it followed policy, in particular that content not include original research and be verifiable. You wrote 15 USCT received a medal of honor, but later in the article the number is given as 18. You quote from Apotheker, but do not provide the full quote, so it would be impossible for someone not already familiar with it to find. You wrote that USCT troops were not considered equal and black soldiers were often exposed to more difficult conditions without any citation. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have reverted the change, I'm going to continue this discussion on the talk page, Talk:United States Colored Troops. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. i added response here due to edit conflict. moving to talk page HDLShrsmn (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients page says 15 USCT received the Medal of honor. it doesn't matter, it's can be corrected and other page may be updated.HDLShrsmn (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

aslo, ahving problems finding the individual who added the casualty rates for black soldiers in the Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War page. HDLShrsmn (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

as for USCT not being treated equally was aslo a quote, but i read on wiki, but can't seem to find it. still looking HDLShrsmn (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've tried to clean things up a bit. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]