User talk:James H. Jenkins/Archive 3

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

I fell obliged to express a gratitude for your defense of justice on Discussion page of TH article. No matter you consider yourself a Christ's disciple or not I think your fight against vandalism (removing false accusations in heresy etc.) is a noble and valuable deed. As for me personally, I have changed my opinion to think significantly higher of Wikipedia after have seen your job mentioned above. I mean I now think it contains some really objective materials (not falsely 'neutral' but actually pro-cynic ones). Thank you very much! B7elijah (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For one of the most experienced Wikipedians I've ever known. Your high internal culture helped to solve hot discussions many times, even ones with such clumsy writers like me. With sincere gratitude. B7elijah (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank You, Sincerely

Thank you for you kind words to me. They always give me a warm feeling of the presence of the _live_ soul that is very rare in this latest times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B7elijah (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Genuine Nobleness Barnstar
	Thank you for your infinite kindness which you always try to achieve a peace with. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things. God save you, Sir. B7elijah (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Presiding Patriarch

I was wondering if I could have your input at Talk:Presiding Patriarch. I am confused as to the status of "Asahel Smith" and I know you are very knowledgeable in some Church history, so you may be able to clear up my confusion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Left you a message on the article talk page. Sorry I couldn't be of any help, here, and best of luck in your search! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	stumbled on your message to User_talk:69.51.152.180, we don't often see politeness like that. A shame that you did wash your hand of the page/subject. I haven't seen specific edits but imagine they would have been beneficial to the project. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Campaign Against LDS Articles.

Hi,

Ism Schism has also proposed the deletion of the articles of The Restored Church of Christ and the Church of Israel as well as the Church of the assured way. All these churches are LDS splinter groups. Check out today's deletion log. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I left comments on the first two church's logs; I would imagine the first might end up deleted, anyway (though I don't think it should be, since its existence can be proven by the sources provided, and that should be enough--I don't like Mr. Schism's idea that he should be able to determine the "notability" of any given LDS organization, anyway. That said, I think the second church is a definite candidate for retention; I see no reason whatsoever for him to have challenged that one, unless he just doesn't like tiny so-called "splinter groups" (and BTW, I find that term highly offensive, as a person who spent several years as a memeber of a couple of those "splinter groups"--I know, of course, that you meant no harm in using it, and I have NOTHING whatsoever against you, but I thought I should mention that; please, Mr. Saucer, no offense intended towards you, here!). In regard to the last of those churches, Mr. Schism really boiled my blood, by simply tagging it for deletion without a single word of explanation on the article's talk page, or in the deletion log--which he should have seen this was thrashed out about eighteen months ago, and the final result was "keep." But thank you for letting me know this; I shouldn't get so upset about it--and I'm not, really, except for the Assured Way deletion tag thing. That really got my goat. But thanks so much for letting me know, and I hope nothing I said here caused you any offense, as none at all was intended--like I said, I know you meant no offense toward me in your use of that term, and you had no way of knowing my feelings about it. Thanks again, and cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No offense was taken, and none was offered. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the section title

You have recently reverted my edit but I believe there is no sound basis for that. Please take a look to the Seraphim Rose's talk page. Regards, B7elijah (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem all this time has been that the info on Rose's homosexuality has been in the wrong section all along. It properly belongs under "early life" anyway, not "spiritual search." Hence, I moved all that info there. Take a look and see if it doesn't seem to "belong" better, in that part of the article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks a lot for your justice and wisdom - the old version of title was artificial and inappropriate indeed, -- you have corrected a serious wikiarticle inconsistency.

As for fragments moving, I suppose the story reads much better after your edit. Even the previous variant was probably more chronological (since the Rose's classmate by Asian Institute is mentioned in the fragment moved out of the 'asian' paragraph), I still prefer the new edition. B7elijah (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles about airline accidents

Hi Ecjmartin. Thanks for taking an interest in Ansett-ANA Flight 149. Today you amended the lead sentence to incorporate the title of the article. Your edit summary said this seems to be the standard Wikipedia practice – see your diff. The desirability, or otherwise, of including the title of an article in the lead paragraph, or anywhere else in the main text, is discussed in Wikipedia’s Manual of Style - Lead section. In relation to your recent edit, at WP:BEGINNING it gives the following advice: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text."

Your edit stated that Ansett-ANA Flight 149 refers to "... ... the subsequent crash." That is incorrect. This accident is often referred to as the Winton crash because Winton was the town nearest to the crash site. It is very common for aircraft accidents to be known by the location of the crash, but that is not Wikipedia's naming convention. Most articles on airline accidents have a title based on the name of the airline. This is strongly recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation accident task force#Accident article naming conventions. However, the name of the airline is usually irrelevant to an airline accident. Accidents are caused by many different factors but the identity of the operator is almost always not one of those factors. For that reason, the title of the article must be considered to be merely descriptive and it does not need to appear verbatim in the lead sentence, or even in the main text. Dolphin (t) 22:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mia culpa. My apologies. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Twenty Negro Law, Ecjmartin!

Wikipedia editor SPat just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

great job on the article! you should try getting it to a DYK on the front page, and maybe even nominate for GA status. Let me know if you need help...

To reply, leave a comment on SPat's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

PDF file needed

Hello.
You have furnished some knowledge to the page Harut and Marut. But I need to read the full-text of the reference:
David Samuel Margoliouth. Originally published in The Muslim World, Vol. XX, 1930, pp. 73-79.
Can you kindly mail it to me at abidbioinf@gmail.com, as the article is not accessible in my country and I searched everywhere else, its author is also dead. Thank you.
Chintu6 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

With warm and friendly wishes for this Holiday Season, dear Sir! Have a Holy and a Blessed Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B7elijah (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Newton (Alabama)

Nyttend (talk 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Bushwhacker

Hi, Ecjmartin. Are you sure you meant Southern Alabama? Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am!), but I think the Appalachians don't extend into the southern portion of that state. See this map, for instance. Rivertorch (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've reworded the article to make my meaning more clear, namely that residents of southern Alabama during the war used this same term, for the same reason. The way I had it before didn't make that clear, and I appreciate your letting me know. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It looks good now. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph G. Sanders

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Start KYMAK article?

I just saw your comment following mine - Dab295 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

If you care to start an article on KYMAK, I hereby invite you to do so. I visit Independence three times a year. I could meet you there this September. Dab295 DAB (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what this is about. Could you enlighten me, please? Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed reading your User page that your interests and contributions are directly related to the concept I explain on my User page which I call KYMAK on my website. It was suggested to me that I write an article on KYMAK but I do not know how to start one. As you will find on my talk page, one administrator advised me to let someone else do it. I just thought you might like to do it. DAB (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've checked your userpage, but I'm still confused. Also, I'm neck-deep in another writing project at this time, so I will have to decline your generous offer. Thanks for considering me, and good luck on finding an author! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite)

First, I'm sorry I if I made a mistake. I didn't notice the possible connection between you and the commons account Ecjmartin1 or I would have come to you first to get the source information on the images. If you could supply me with the source you got the images from, I would be more than happy to try and figure out a way to undelete them. I really hated the idea of deleted these really cool images, but the problem was, there simply was no publication or Authorship information supplied, so the images could not be shown to be Pubic Domain.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, my friend. I don't have that info anymore, but I'll see if I can't find it somewhere in the next few days, and if I can, I'll send it your way. I totally understand why you had to do as you did; no hard feelings whatsoever, on this end. Seriously. Thanks so much for being so considerate, and for letting me know what happened. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are one of those people who don't just take the easy way out and put unsourced stuff on pages and then walk away, like so many other commoms uploaders. I get tired of seeing people created account then upload a bunch of images using the PD-Self tag for images that were taken 100+ years ago, then walking away from the account. I want to say to them "Sure you took the photo yourself in 1913....right?!?" However, had I realized that Ecjmartin1 was you, I would have taken the time to get with you before putting these images up for deletion. I just didn't make the connection.

I have been looking for replacements for these image. The problem I keep running into is that most the books on the Cutlerites are new, so unless I buy the books I can't read them. Not that that makes the images copyrighted, but it make is hard to even see them. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think to be honest that I might have been guilty of not adequately understanding the law/policy there, which is one reason I didn't make a big deal out of it when you took them down. I definitely *don't* want to be in violation of any policies, so I'm glad that you got to them before someone else did. I was a Cutlerite for 18 months in the early '90's, and I can tell you that there aren't many books or photos, out there--they've only published one book that I ever knew of (long out of print, though they might be willing to sell you one--but it has no photos of this kind), and maybe 3-5 pamphlets. Seriously--don't go to the trouble; as I said, I probably don't understand the law very well, so that's probably got more to do with it than anything. I deeply appreciate the consideration you've shown to me in this matter, far more than you know. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Community of Christ Infobox

Someone has put the Community of Christ infobox up for deletion because he feels that we shouldn't be using an infobox on more then one page, (see here). This template is used the same way that {{Infobox LDS Church}} and his reason for deletion could very easily be applied to that page. I think that perhaps some more editor of Later Day Saint pages need to chime in, of we are going to find that this will happens to a number of LDS Related infobox templates.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I made a comment on the deletion proposal page. I don't get why this guy should have any problem with these kind of templates in the first place; it's not like they take up much space to begin with, and they are helpful, as you observe. There's this cat on WP who hates the word "comprised;" he's gone through every article where I used that word, and replaced it with "composed." Does it all over WP. I don't get people like that; I guess they have nothing better to do... Anyway, I did put my two cents worth in on it; hopefully it helps. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Roads to Moscow) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Roads to Moscow, Ecjmartin!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Al Stewart - god that takes me back :). Nice article (needs some inline citations).

To reply, leave a comment on Jennie Matthews 97's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on February 7, 2014. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/February 7, 2014. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors Giants2008 (talk · contribs), Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) or SchroCat (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The sects in the Latter Day Saint movement are sometimes collectively referred to as Mormonism, although some sects are opposed to the use of this term, as they consider it to be derogatory. Though a few minuscule factions broke with Joseph Smith, Jr.'s Latter Day Saint movement during his lifetime, he retained the allegiance of the vast majority of Latter Day Saints until his murder in June 1844. Following Smith's death, his movement experienced a profound leadership crisis which led to a schism within his church. The largest group, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, followed Brigham Young (pictured), settling in what would become the Utah Territory. The second-largest faction, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, coalesced around Joseph Smith III, eldest son of Joseph Smith, Jr. Other would-be leaders included the senior surviving member of the First Presidency, Sidney Rigdon; the newly-baptized James Strang from Wisconsin; and Alpheus Cutler, one of the Council of Fifty. Each of these men still retains a following.

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Horn, Rail and Breastwork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [Military Division of the Mississippi]], made up of three armies totaling 98,500 men at first;<ref>[Eicher, David J. ''The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War''. New York: Simon &
• 5, pg. 696.</ref> these would increase to 112,000 before the Atlanta Campaign was through.<ref>[McKay, John E. "Atlanta Campaign." In ''Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Coronation of the Russian monarch

Hello! I'm happy to hear that you are interested in renominating Coronation of the Russian monarch. Once you have made the necessary changes to the article, I would recommend renominating it at wp:gan. My life circumstances have changed since I last reviewed that article, and I don't have as much time as I'd like to spend on wikipedia anymore, and I may not be able to complete a review in a timely manner. Once you nominate it, let me know, and I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it gets reviewed in a timely manner and do it myself if I have some spare time. Best of luck and happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 14:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Magnificent Sinner

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Magnificent Sinner, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Magnificent Sinner. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give The Magnificent Sinner a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Magnificent Sinner. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. noq (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I've been editing on this encyclopedia for years, and this is the first I've ever heard of this. Thanks for letting me know. I don't know if I ever cut-and-pasted any other pages in the past; if I did, it was too long ago for me to recall. Will you or some other WP authority be taking care of the move, or do I need to go back and do that? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Information}}

I'm really sorry; I didn't know you hadn't used this before. Okay, if you go to Template:Information it has some documentation. What I'd suggest doing is pasting in the "full" list of parameters - it will automatically hide optional ones that aren't filled in. Here's the list:

{{Information
| description = 
| source      = 
| date        = 
| author      = 
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

Of these, we can ignore anything after "author", unless you need it for the file. (If "permission" isn't filled in, it defaults to "see below", so it's just as easy to put the license tag under the information template.) The only one of these you're likely to ever need is "other_versions", which is used to link to, say, a restored version, or a different photograph of the same, and so on.

So, anyway, let's fill it out for File:Battle of Munfordville.jpg

Description is just saying what it is. So we could write something like "Battle of Munfordville. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862,"

That gets us

{{Information
| description = [[Battle of Munfordville]]. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862,
| source      = 
| date        = 
| author      = 
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

Next, source. Well, thatr's also there. "Harper's History of the Great Rebellion". Let's put that in.

{{Information
| description = [[Battle of Munfordville]]. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862,
| source      = ''Harper's History of the Great Rebellion''
| date        = 
| author      = 
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

Ideally, we'd want to use {{cite book}} to give more information about it, though. A search for the title shows it should actually be "Harper's Pictoral History of the Great Rebellion" and gives various versions and two volumes. Maybe it's best to just leave it at that.

{{Information
| description = [[Battle of Munfordville]]. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862,
| source      = ''Harper's Pictoral History of the Great Rebellion''
| date        = 
| author      = 
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

Date: the information already there says " c1863", but the book version was published in 1866 according to my search. So, let's say both

{{Information
| description = [[Battle of Munfordville]]. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862,
| source      = ''Harper's Pictoral History of the Great Rebellion''
| date        = c. 1863 original printing, book publication c. 1866.
| author      = 
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

Author. This isn't in the information we have already. But Harper's Weekly is fairly well-represented in the Library of Congress archives, so let's put "Munfordville" into the Library of Congress search.

Nothing relevant.

Check the article. Ah, also called "Battle of Green River." Put that in and we get http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002706067/ with the annoying typo in the title of "Battle of Mumfordsville". Oh. No new information, except the version we have is cropped. Let's see if we can find an uncropped copy...

A bit more research finds a terrible copy with the words "From a sketch by H. Lovie". A quick search for that shows a notable documenter of the Civil War by that name, Henri Lovie (1829-1875). That'll do!

{{Information
| description = [[Battle of Munfordville]]. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862. [Cropped]
| source      = ''Harper's Pictoral History of the Great Rebellion''
| date        = c. 1863 original printing, book publication c. 1866.
| author      = [[Henri Lovie]] (1829-1875)
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

Oh, but we'd better make the links work on commons. A quick tweak:

{{Information
| description = [[:en:Battle of Munfordville|Battle of Munfordville]]. Kentucky, Sunday, Sept. 14th 1862. [Cropped]
| source      = ''Harper's Pictoral History of the Great Rebellion''
| date        = c. 1863 original printing, book publication c. 1866.
| author      = [[:en:Henri Lovie|Henri Lovie]] (1829-1875)
| permission  = 
| other_versions = 
| additional_information = 
}}

And we're done. Still needs moved to Commons, but that's minor. See File:Battle of Munfordville.jpg for how this appears on the page. If you need further help, just ask. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Don't give up. I know it can be infuriating sometimes, but you are a good editor. --- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you were involved (but are not the focus of).--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I will make a response later this evening, when I get home from work. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)