User talk:Mmcmartin35

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Mmcmartin35/Army National Guard and Active Regular Army Units with Colonial Roots has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Army National Guard and Active Regular Army Units with Colonial Roots, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Army National Guard and Active Regular Army Units with Colonial Roots, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Army National Guard and Active Regular Army Units with Colonial Roots

I am amazed with your thorough research and attention to details; I've passed the article with the highest rating I could give and it is something to be proud of. I wish I had passed it sooner after looking at it for two days; half stunned and half in awe at the size and scope of the work. Keep it up! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi ChrisGualtieri,

Thank you for the kind words. I think I've fixed all of the ambiguous links. I've also added categories at the bottom of the article. I'm most pleased with the photographs of the DUIs. I have alway hated photography, but somehow managed to master the art of photographing (and photoshopping) reflective metallic insignia so that they come out looking very nice.

I could write a similar type of article about "Army National Guard and Active Regular Army Units with Credit for the Gettysburg Campaign," but it would be quite long (well over a hundred units, with more detailed information about what they each did in the battle). It would also be rather timely, considering that the 150th anniversary of the Battle is coming up in 2013. There are also excellent maps (by Hal Jespersen) available on Wikipedia. Would you encourage me to do it? I could divide it into three articles (National Guard - Union; National Guard - Confederate; and Regular Army - Union), but the one on National Guard units derived from Union units would still be quite long. However, I think a single article gives the topic more coherence.

Best regards, (Mmcmartin35 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Contributions needing sources

Thanks for your contributions to a number of articles on colonial history. Please be advised that you should reliably source your contributions, especially if the article is marked as a Good Article. These contributions are likely to be removed if they are not cited. See WP:Citing sources for information and guidelines on how to do so. Magic♪piano 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magicpiano|♪piano

Thank you. I have added references for the sections on Alejandro O'Reilly (296 Inf, ARNG PR) and the paragraphs dealing with Molly Corbin and Molly Pitcher (103 Eng Bn, ARNG PA). I can't find any other sections that are inadequately referenced. (Mmcmartin35 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm specifically referring to your contributions to a variety of battle articles (e.g. Battles of Saratoga and Battles of Lexington and Concord, to name only two that you edited yesterday). These will also have to have the material you added cited. Magic♪piano 16:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I understand. May I ask for some advice? The sources that would be needed would be citations of the Lineage and Honors Certificates, where Campaign Credits are listed. This would then require as many citations as units that have credit for the battle, as many as nine or ten in several cases. Can you suggest a way to lump this together - something like "Department of the Army, Lineage and Honors Certificates for Unit A, Unit B, Unit C, etc? I appreciate you comments and suggestions for ways to improve my article. (Mmcmartin35 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

If the credits are from the same source, you can always lump the pages together. If unit A is sourced to Wright, page 37, and unit B is sourced to Wright, page 119, you can use a single citation: "Wright, pp. 37, 119". Otherwise, you'll have to source each unit to wherever you got the info from. You could list all of those citations in a single <ref> tag if there are a lot of them. Please make sure you include full bibliographic info on the cited works. Thanks! Magic♪piano 19:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my entry in "Battles of Lexington and Concord" by adding citations. Please look at what I've done and let me know whether the new version is satisfactory. If so, I'll get to work on the other edits. Thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow. (Mmcmartin35 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

That looks pretty good, thanks. I'd recommend looking up ISBNs (you can do this by finding the book either in Google Books or at www.worldcat.org, if you don't have them in front of you) for your books. Magic♪piano 22:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get to work on these and plan to have them all cleaned up by the weekend. (Mmcmartin35 (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]