Jump to content

User talk:North Shoreman/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recommend posting to ACW Task force

[edit]

Hi Tom, just as a thought, you may want to post to WP:ACW about the pending History & geography comment since many of them are familiar with Ghost and these issues and will be interested. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Great Train Raid of 1861

[edit]

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Train Raid of 1861

[edit]

You have the patience of Job. Is there anything specific you want me or others to do? I can't volunteer for any formal mediation role because I've had disputes with GG in the past. It is amazing to me that educated people cannot understand what secondary sources are and what a fundamental role they play in Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the best thing to do is to make a solid, simple proposal that would allow folks to respond with a clear "yes" or "no". My general concept of the article is expressed in my reply to the section on the article's talk page "7 Purpose of Wikipedia - a reminder". While reasonable people may have differences on some aspects of it, I think the basic format of LEDE, MAIN BODY OF ARTICLE (the more numerous version), and then CONTROVERSY is pretty much consistent with common Wikipedia practices. I think the important first step is to get the entire subsection "6.3 List of historians believing the locomotive raid true" out of the article. If it has information of value then it should be presented in the body of the article w/o all the OR about what it proves or refutes re Robertson. Unless something else develops in the next couple days, I will probably propose something as a "Request for Consensus" on the discussion page and see what happens -- I find it difficult to believe that anybody will argue that the section remain. If you have ideas along this line let me know. Thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach is fine with me. The table of agreeing sources is completely inappropriate. Ghost should be challenged to find secondary sources published after 1997 (after Robertson's book) that dispute Robertson's conclusions, not to travel back in time to find older secondary sources and obscure primary sources. Certainly anyone writing about Jackson after Robertson's book came out would have something to say on such a blatantly controversial conclusion in a book widely considered to be the definitive bio. By the way, when writing in the ACW space, it is better to avoid the abbreviation OR in correspondence unless you mean the Official Records (I assume you are using it to mean original research, but others might not). Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary work, dude. FTR, BusterD (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting odd messages

[edit]

I'm getting odd messages telling me I've vandalized pages I've never visited, I don't know if it's the error of it's someone else on the college I go to or what. It just seems so strange. Here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.129.115.2&diff=cur Father Time89 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Zachary Taylor

[edit]

From the history of the article on Zachary Taylor, you appear to be a notable contributor to it. As a result, I thought you might like to get involved in a discussion I have started on the talk page concerning a proposal to change the main picture in the infobox: [1] If you do get involved, thank you. Terrakyte (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

[edit]

Tom- I recently received a message from you concerning my editing of a page. I am a frequenter of Wikipedia and throughly enjoy using it as a means to satisfy my ever growing questioning. I (as almost any person does) despise mis-editing. I use Wikipedia as a base for many of my facts and do not enjoy being ill informed. I am a college student, and leave my computer in my room. Therefore, I assume it was one of my friends who edited the "Confederate States of America" page. I would like to apologize for this wrong doing, and the inconvenience which you had to go through to correct it. History of the South is an area of great interest to me, and I can see that you have edited many pages on the topic. I'm glad to know that we posess a similar interest. Any new information you might have for me concerning the subject, I'd be interested to hear. Again, my most sincere apologies for the editing. 

                     Sincerely, 
                          Gray Bryant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.247.50 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

[edit]

As a courtesy, I need to let you know that I've brought your name up at AN/I with respect to possible sock puppetry at SPLC, but with the note that I don't think it's likely that you're directly involved. arimareiji (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.46.202.50

[edit]

I've not made any edits while not being logged in, could you direct me to the supposed edit from this IP? (User:86.46.202.50 aka user: BluSonic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.202.50 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were able to figure out that I placed a warning on your IP account about vandalism, then you should be able to check out the "User contributions" tab on either the side or the bottom of the page where the warning was placed -- click on this and you will in fact see that your IP did make an edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: on my last entry to pushing POV

[edit]

should that have more appropriately been sent to an individual talk? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Mohawk Nation =

[edit]

hi Tom, the POV you keep reverting to does not apply to the Mohawk Nation. Other Indian population may meet your pov but the Iroquois, Six Nations, & members do not. The sub-civilizing POV is a product of 19th & 20th century ethnocentrism. onen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.95.71 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies talk 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You get one of these when you join the main project ... not trying to teach you to suck eggs :) Welcme aboard, Tom!  Roger Davies talk 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The American Civil War Barnstar
For the many helpful edits to American Civil War-era articles you have made in months past, I welcome you to the ACW Task Force with this barnstar. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

[edit]

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism patrol

[edit]

Hi Tom! I noticed your recent reversion on the 1918 flu pandemic article and the IP user page. I reverted to the IP version, and left the IP anon a note. I did this after checking the artist's Wikipedia article and noting that the cause of death is listed as stroke and pneumonia. Of course, the flu might have been involved, but it's not in the article. It appears to me that this is a "good faith" edit, particularly if the anon was looking for consistency within the encyclopedia itself. Best wishes, and good vandal hunting. WBardwin (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a former IP user -- please don't assume that the same person uses the same IP for all edits. Most admins know that IP's can be assigned randomly or are used by institutions. While I don't completely trust internet sources in general - the rate of error on historic issues is very high -- your documentation on the cause of death should be used to update the Klimt article. And as I sent you a polite note, I would appreciate the courtesy of a polite response rather than a lecture. WBardwin (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reedited the bogus Oklahoma Land Rush comment, the year that the Oklahoma land rush taken place was not 1992, but a century before in 1892. Unless the anon IP poster was joking about a "land rush" when it comes to real estate in Oklahoma of the 1990s, I guess that edit of mine was useless. My apologies if it appeared to be a form of vandalism and I never want to get in breach of any rules on wikipedia. Have a nice day. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you don't use edit summaries. Snce everyone makes mistakes in their editing from time to time, including edit summaries, among other purposes, allows people to know your intentions and more easily diferentiate between good intentioned edis and vandalism. When you find factual errors on discussion pages, the thing to do is to add your own comment on the page rather than editing another editors comments. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

I was reverting to a previous revision using huggle, due do a couple vandal edits. I did not relilize that I reverted still more vandalism. I removed it, and now it is free of vandalism. AndrewrpTally-ho! 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Huggle...Tom, you do quite a bit of reverting vandalism...have you considered using an anti-vandal tool like Huggle (for Windows) or Twinkle (for Linux) to simplify things for yourself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

[edit]

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln and religion

[edit]

Messages left here moved to the discussion page of Abraham Lincoln. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln

[edit]

Hello, just noticed your wise revert on the changes made to the Abraham Lincoln page. Would suggest blocking this user, as his behavior on the talk page suggests that he's not interested in anything but making mischief. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

[edit]

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emancipation Proclamation

[edit]

Generally, accusing someone of vandalism for an edit that removed vandalism is considered impolite. If you had looked through my contributions or browsed my talkpage you would have seen that I am clearly not a vandal. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the history of your IP number demonstrates a clear history of vandalism. The material you deleted from the article Emancipation Proclamation is pretty much common knowledge to anyone who has done any reading on the EP. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a warning regarding your recent personal attack here.[2] Wikipedia has a fairly stringent policy on attacking other editors. This combined with your previous incivility and drive-by reverting are unacceptable. Continue and you will be blocked. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give that threatened blocking your best shot. As far as "drive-by reverting", aren't you the one who TWICE deleted accurate information (information YOU originally claimed was vandalism) from the article in question and aren't I the one who has edited that artcle 71 times? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Counting your edits to individual pages, eh? Are you familiar with WP:OWN? Did you knowingly add unsourced content to that page? Wikipedia tends to prefer that editors cite their sources. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the wikipedia software does the counting for you -- you ought to check it ot before you accuse people of "drive-by reverting. Rather than ownership, the proper reference would be WP:WATCH. This describes a very much encouraged and necessary practice that insures, among other things, that folks deleting accurate material from articles don't get away with it -- just like you didn't get away with it in this situation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know you are a Clevelander

[edit]

I'd made an assumption from your handle that by the North Shore, you meant Chicago's affluent northern suburbs. Had I checked your page before, I'd have been pleasantly surprised to find we have a common origin (I hail from the East Side, although I've been here in Chicago for the past 15 years). Our exchange on Paine's citizenship has been stimulating and coaxed me out of a spell of mental laziness I've been in as of late. I'm still not sure what the answer is, but I appreciate your argumentation all the same. Question for you: my instincts tell me you are/were an attorney, or a college professor. Am I correct? If I'm not, then I think you may have missed your calling... and I mean that most respectfully. Anyhow, thanks again. 02:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong guess on my career path, but otherwise thanks for the kind words. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

[edit]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wars v. American Indian Wars

[edit]

Thanks for fixing that lede; I know I could have done it but I placed the POV tag because the "new"article reduplicates, albeit in terser form, the content at American Indian Wars, which had been originally named "Indian Wars" until it was pointed out that there are non-USian meanings to that, and in the form "Indian wars" could also mean wars between Indian peoples. So what we're facing is a POV fork - simply solved I suppose by placing a set of merge tags, but it strikes me that the re-creation of what had been the Indian Wars redirect is a problem that may recur once solved. Thoughts?Skookum1 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just left a note at User talk:Fred Bauder, who was the person who converted the redirect into a new article/POV fork. As stated there, the simplest thing to do is simply revert all changes since the conversion of the redirect.....several WikiP)rojects are involved here - NorthAmNative, MILHIST, and WP:US and peripherally WP:Can and WP:Mex and maybe others; multiple consultations, a long-drawn-out-argument that's already ben exhaustively done, or just one big revert? I think the latter is the best solution....Skookum1 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln a GA...Let's do this!

[edit]

You're totally writing this with Team of Rivals on your lap, aren't you? Way cool! So am I! You're OK with me nominating this for GA as soon as I resolve the cite issues, right —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments on my talk page Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit

[edit]

YOu thaught that my edit on John WIlkes booth was vandalism and i disagree why do you think it was —Preceding unsigned comment added by VTomi (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism because I do not believe that it is possible for someone to believe that reference to a video game in the lead of that article was either constructive or appropriate. If that actually was a good faith effort on your part, then I strongly suggest you spend some time familiarizing yourself with editing policy -- you can start with WP:POLICY and WP:LEAD. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Warning on Edit War and Revert Violation

[edit]
You posted something about this on my talk page, but you're way off base on this -- and ought to back off.
I've made one revert in past 24 hours.
You're welcome to delete what you've posted.
Also, if Cleveland is a primary interest of yours, perhaps you should just stay away from this dispute entirely if you're operating as administrator -- or perhaps alternately, at least contribute to discussion on the Talk page.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you do some research -- using the links on the warning you will find this, "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." You have definately done this -- four different editors have removed material that you keep putting back. BTW I am not an administrator. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tks from wiki users

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Awarded to North Shoreman for his ongoing Anti-Vandalism conversions

Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoslavery

[edit]

See the Discussion page on the slavery article. And read my edits. What they depict is clearly slavery--to wit, forced labor without compensation or opportunity to change occupations. Furthermore, I take extreme umbrage at your dismissing my contributions as "rhetoric[]" and "fringe . . . history." They are absolutely neither and the existence of black slavery well into the 20th century is a well-documented if, sadly, unknown fact, and belongs in any discussion of American slavery. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been instructed in the error of your ways on the article's discussion page and been provided a 3RR Warning on your own talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one who is reverting in bad faith, sir. My "ways" are not in "error." I have explained as much time and again. Stop deleting my edits, for you have no cause to do so. I have tried to be civil about this, and I have tried to reason with you, but you have responded with nothing but high-handed and highly insulting nonsense. Feel free to edit what I wrote. But DO NOT delete it wholesale. Everything single statement I added is factually correct and properly sourced. The name of the book is SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME: THE RE-ENSLAVEMENT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS FROM THE CIVIL WAR TO WORLD WAR II. It won the Pulitzer last year, and is itself extremely well sourced. Read it and tell me I'm wrong. Otherwise, back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.70.80 (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four editors have now reverted your work and I see you are now blocked for 24 hours because of your edit warring. I see little future for your wikipedia career unless you acknowledge the "error of your ways." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

[edit]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

[edit]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revisionist historians

[edit]

I appreciate your constructive contribution to the disambiguation page. You're also restoring my faith in Wikipedia thereby - thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

Revisionist historians (American)

[edit]

I welcome your contributions (the headers). However, I now think that the ("good") article referred to by one of the headers needs more editing - to conform to these historians' actual writings and scholarship. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above to the actual article and am replying there. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: we have been chatting away at Howard Zinn but I want to say as an aside that your writing thing such as , "You miss the point of the objections that have been raised." are not helpful. You don't know what I've missed. So, "You seem to have missed" would, in my opinion be much better phrasing. Also when you say, "Actually the only thing that "retelling" implies is that something is being told again." I am inclined to reply that a definition of the word retelling is "a new, a version of a story". (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retelling) So the word might imply something being told again to you but to many, including the folks who write dictionaries the word suggests more. I came to this discussion to protest against Zinn being listed as a "revisionist" but am willing to give this new perspective a fair chance. Also the foreword I quoted is not from "A People's History" but " American Empire" Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ludvikus September 2009 -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearerv. User:Ludvikus -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

[edit]

This is to inform you that you are the subject of this WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

[edit]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

A chance to resolve an old controversy

[edit]

User:Peregrine Fisher has been leading an effort to move the Abraham Lincoln pagespace toward A-class review by adding relevant citations and rewriting bloat. User has identified the American Civil War sections as needing more and better citation plus some small expansion. New talk threads have requested input on the subject of completeness of coverage. Your input is welcome. With a lot of talk history well behind us, I asked User:Gwen Gale to bring a fresh set of eyes to the page (perhaps countering pro-USA bias); she wants to see a King Lincoln link insertion. I'm going to raise the issue on Talk:Abraham Lincoln and I wanted to notify you first. While I disagree with Gwen's overall assessment as described on her talk, I agree consideration should be given to description of serious minority views at this particular time. I invite you to engage in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for reverting the mal-edits made by 163.153.220.129. The administration at the school district involved has reported that they have identified the student and are taking appropriate action so that the student understands why their action was inappropriate. --NERIC-Security (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

Sherman article

[edit]

NS: Thank you for your action. I realize that Sherman draws controversy, and it should be acknowledged in the article, but that nickname business seems too much. Hartfelt (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

ANI notice

[edit]

Hello, North Shoreman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

[edit]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

[edit]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

Somalia change

[edit]

Recently an IP editor changed the death toll of U.S. servicemembers in the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) from 18 -> 19 in the article Military history of the United States, which you reverted. I can understand your reasons to do it, but it appears that it was changed to match the article, which makes a note of the 19th death being seperated by two days of the battle itself, but included it in the infobox none the less. I saw the change myself, but didn't revert it. Just thought you should know, in case your reconsider your reversion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Since a case could be made for either 18 or 19, my inclination is to let the revert of the IP stand and leave it to somebody who is interested in defending a change to 19 to revert me with an explanation in the edit summary. If somebody does that I will have no problem with it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late thankyou

[edit]

Disputing with you on the Andrew Jackson article taught me that to reach consensus, win an argument or persuade other editors in primarily sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. Most everything else is useless rhetoric. I also learned to reign in some anger and rigidity on this article and by watching the soap opera in the talk pages of The Holocaust. So thanks for the help. I did some genealogy and my great great grandfather was Scots-Irish (like Jackson) in about the same time-period and he married an Osage woman who didn't want to relocate. Doesn't make my views of Jackson any less muddled... Oh, and it's amazing the number of Scot-Irish kin that became president of our States. Alatari (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

Nullification Crisis talk page

[edit]

Sorry for that. The IP is on a bit of a crusade to get The Truth into Wikipedia, and it's spilling into more and more articles. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:North_Shoreman/Archive_2&oldid=1166521807"