Jump to content

User talk:North Shoreman/Archive 3

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

Sourcing Problem (Picked You Up In Recent Changes)

[edit]

I just created Kentucky Route 30 and put in a source. Only problem is that even though the link DOES work, when you click on it it says the page can't be found which isn't true. What's wrong with it? -WarthogDemon 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just figured it out. Sorry for the bother. Happy Editing. :) -WarthogDemon 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential vandalism by 192.193.171.155

[edit]

Hi, I saw you reverted an edit coming from IP 192.193.171.155. The same IP made another apparently destructive edit, then a dubious one, without adding any reference. Can you please take a look? PS: That IP's talk page had a banner mentioning it was shared by Citigroup, but the last version has undone the revision that added that banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. You have the same abilities to revert these edits, issue warnings, and request administrator action against vandalism that I do. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I did make my references and I will do it again, type in Barry Soetoro in the search box here and you will see obama birth certificate will come up. He is hiding behind this name and no one cares till more americans die. besides if this is a glitch it needs to be fixed or let people know when they type in barry soetoro and that obama birth certificate page comes up need to have a disclosure that it is a glitch and it is in the process of getting fixed. It is not vandalism when one is speaking the truth like you know I am. If I am lying then i will no longer correct anything ever again. Barry Soetoro is Barack Hussein Obama Junior that produced a certificate of live birth with african as his dad's race and african is not a race africa is a country. Someone needs to fix this before this country is so divided we will never be the united states of america again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djchillman (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User templates

[edit]

You may be interested in one of the following templates:

Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantrill's Raiders

[edit]

Thank you for your copy edits and reference work on the article Quantrill's Raiders. You have, by your edits, cleaned up most if not all of the NPOV issues I had with the article. I know I did not have the resources available nor the time at the moment to do much with the article; but I was pretty sure that someone would if I tagged it. My editing doesn't involve Civil War articles but only as they are co-incidental the the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and the revenue cutters that operated during and immediately after the Civil War and almost all my reference materials involve the USRCS or it's successor agency, the U.S. Coast Guard. As a Kansan interested in Kansas history I realize that the origins of the Civil War began as far back as the Missouri Compromise and later with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. As a Kansan, one is sometimes referred to as a 'Jayhawk' and that is how I ran across the article on Quantrill's Raiders. It was interesting to me, but I saw NPOV issues with it. Anyway, thanks for your edits and when you feel that the article has been edited enough to warrant removal of the tag, you certainly have my blessing. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion

[edit]

The following subcategory of the Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts has been proposed for deletion: Category:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts. A link to the discussion is provided at the top of the subcategory page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Missouri

[edit]

There hasn't been much activity at WikiProject Missouri or any of its child projects lately, and I saw your name on the list of active participants. If you are willing to jump in again, please consider helping to revive the project:

If you know anyone who might be interested in Missouri (its history, culture, sports, people, places, architecture, etc.), please pass this message along to them! If you are still interested in the project but aren't currently active, please add yourself to the list of inactive participants at the bottom of this list. Thanks!

On behalf of the project,  fetchcomms☛ 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March Coordinator elections

[edit]

Would you consider putting your name in the hat for Military History project coordinator during the March election cycle? I'm going to nominate myself, not because I'm especially qualified, but because us ACW folks have been keeping a low profile for too long. You're on the shortlist of ACW people I think would be suitable. Plus it would be more fun WITH you. I've even asked Hal, but I suspect he'll shy away, like I usually do. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't consider my solicitation to be any form of advertising for my own pending offer. I just know editors I regard as reliably sensible and trustworthy. You're that guy. All the best. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Hello North Shoreman.
Since you do a lot of AV work, would you like me to request that you get rollback? It is much faster than undo. Give me a shout if you want it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of secession

[edit]

Hi. I think you are doing yeomen's work in the talk page of American Civil War. One suggestion I would make is based on the premise that a lot of people do not pay close attention to the detailed arguments of an article and instead focus on superficial things like the information box and section headers. The first section of this article, Causes of secession, is really a jumble of topics which is divided roughly in half by a subsection, Slavery--even though slavery is discussed before that subsection. It is quite possible that people are looking at the table of contents and objecting to that being the only subhead. Barring a reorganization of a lot of content, simply removing that subsection header might dispel a number of the objections we've received over the years. (I continue to maintain that the antebellum portion of this article is too long when you consider that there are three subarticles that expand on all of the topics raised, but since I am not willing to take on the task of distilling it, this will be a silent objection.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of your ideas regarding the subsection label and the length. The length issue has been resisted but I note that there is a small (at this point) group (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Operation Brothers at War) that has raising the article to FA as a goal. If that project gets off the ground then these issues will need to be addressed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that task force is going to have a very difficult time. It is a big challenge to achieve a rated status for an article if you are not the author of said article. And this one will be particularly contentious. (I have been following the recent, painful progress of Ulysses S. Grant and it has been a real mess.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on policy

[edit]

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

[edit]

Hello North Shoreman.
I asked you this earlier, but it got archived before you saw it. Since you do a lot of AV work, would you like me to request that you get rollback? It is much faster than undo. Give me a shout if you want it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Sought

[edit]

Can you row over to:

User talk:Mwgf79#Sterling Price

I am seeking other opinions on this. THNKS. (Keep your prop clear.) > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

congrats

[edit]

Nice work on finding a compromise that could gain consensus on the contentuous SLPC lede issue. Well done! --j⚛e deckertalk 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And look how long that consensus lasted!! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re TexasReb edits on Confederacy article

[edit]

Hi Tom. I have watched the edits on the article for the past week, and I thought I had a resolution to the issue, and posted a short quote from Kenneth W. Noe, a very respected historian, re: civilian prisoners. I thought this would end the repeated editing, but within a half-hour my edit was reverted by Rjensen. I restored my edit, which I think is fair, and I hope you will uphold it, as it is quite valid and relevent. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you figured that adding this material twice without discussion or consensus would resolve an edit war. I have explained my reasoning on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help with a page number at Leo Frank

[edit]

Hi Tom. I understood from your notes at the LF Talk page that you have a copy of the Oney book, And the Dead Shall Rise. I don't have a copy, and I'd like to add it to the citations for Judge Roan's key statement, "Gentlemen, I have thought about this case more than any other I have ever tried.... But I do not have to be convinced. The jury was convinced." At this diff you can see the ref where I started to add it: it's in the currently renamed (sigh) Appeals section. If you have a copy, when you get a chance would you please fill in the page number? (I realize more than one cite isn't necessary usually, but this situation is different, at least for the time being.) Thank you. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to, but I'm out of town this weekend -- will check on Oney when I get back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cites there now turn out to be plenty, Oney isn't needed after all, for this one. So you don't have to put on your Wiki shoes just yet. But thank you! We'll pull this thing into shape yet -- and under 80k -- do you think? :) LaNaranja (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. (:

[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

vandalism

[edit]

Tom (North Shoreman)

I think one should look up what " vandalism "and what it falls under and should this thread link go further up the food chain ? ? --Kimmy (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating your plagiarized, POV edits is not vandalism. I believe I am the fourth editor to address the inappropriateness of your edits. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

[edit]

Sorry Tom for being a B**** the other day I was out of line - you were correct - --Kimmy (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Rights Movement

[edit]

Hi, in my comment at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)#Proposed_Move I've informally suggested Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968) (etc.) as an alternative. What do you think of that? (replying there, if you choose to reply, would be preferable to me - thanks). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank

[edit]

Hi Tom - Not sure if you are willing to enter the fray on this article, but I am very disturbed about the reliance on journalistic details, first-person quotes by Tom Watson especially, and general sensationalizing of the content, with so much detail you can't tell what the issues are. I've suggested deleting 2 of 3 photos of the lynching (enough already! I know what they meant; that doesn't mean we have to show them), and have found at least two copyright violations, so there are probably more, in editors' attempts to have it be "colorful". It is not up to one or two editors to assume they own the article. It is far from an encyclopedic article in tone.Parkwells (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

[edit]

Hello, North Shoreman/Archive 3! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am trying

[edit]

North Shoreman,

I am new to this process and am trying to follow the correct process. As to your reference to a COI, there are two sides to that. One is a "potential" conflict of interest the other is the experience and knowledge gained by being an active participant. On the other side there is also a COI on using the SPLC as the gospel so to speak as has apparently been done (at least by observing the content). The SPLC uses such classifications as the basis for a very successful fund raising effort and is promoting an idealogy. That is their right, but we also have a right to fairly represented in Wikipedia.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know to use the discussion features and please let me know if I stil have not got the hang on it.

Thanks (assume that I am supposed to use the four tildas istead of my username) MichaelCrane30560 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCrane30560 (talk • contribs)

Trent Affair

[edit]

Have you considered taking Trent Affair to FA? I'd certainly support it, it's a fantastic article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I adjusted the header you left for a warning (dated today) from the error of 'January 2010' to the correct 'January 2011'. Hope that's ok. Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies!! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good Faith / "Edit Warring"

[edit]

You appear to be in violation of the Assume Good Faith principle (one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia) with respect to your comments regarding this edit made to the Confederate States of America article. This edit, made by anonymous user 99.157.58.170, was incorrectly reverted by the ClueBot NG robot as "vandalism" when in fact it was a good faith edit; correcting this erroneous characterization of another editor's edit (made by a robot and then made again by an overzealous human editor, Breawycker) is not "edit warring". Please review the Wikipedia policies in question, and have a wonderful time editing Wikipedia! 184.36.90.183 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your reasons, you reverted the same info. three times. It was edit warring whether you were right or not. In fact, the edit in question may or may not have been vandalism, but it was certainly factually inaccurate and you repeatedly reinserted the factually inaccurate material. I properly issued a 3RR Warning to you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Sumter, Operation Brothers at War

[edit]

Sir, my compliments on all the great work you've done on a variety of Civil War articles. I see you've done a good deal of work on the Battle of Fort Sumter and just wanted to flag you on a post I've made here regarding getting this article up to FA in time for April 12, 2011. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. And it would be outstanding to count you among the editors on the project if you are so inclined. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy noticeboard

[edit]

Hi, you're mentioned here (: BE——Critical__Talk 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal

[edit]

I am still willing to work toward consensus on a mission statement for WikiProject United States. Your comments correctly suggest that there are underlying problems beyond the mission question. Accordingly, I have taken the passage that you quoted about WikiProject communications and drafted text that could be included on the project page requiring that we discuss and at least 5 people agree to any communications sent to other WikiProjects and their members. While I understand that you and many other people want to work within the context of WikiProject United States without making life difficult for other WikiProjects, there needs to be a mechanism to curtail unilateral actions by any one individual purporting to communicate on behalf of the entire WikiProject. Please look it over. I posted it two sections above your post so that it will be an official part of the RFC. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject United States

[edit]

Thanks for your efforts in trying to keep things civil in the discussions and I apologize that I am beginnnig to lose my patience. I have attempted to be civil for a long time and they just keep dragging the discussions out longer and longer and longer presumably until we finally give in of give up. --Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation reported

[edit]

I am placing this notice on your page because of your prior involvement with User:Markglad and the article Thomas Jefferson. After responding to a request for third opinion I placed the article on my watch list, within hours I noticed the occurring of constant reverts. After viewing the article history, it appears that four editors(including yourself) have been reverting unilateral additions by Markglad against consensus. Viewing his edit history, he seems to have very few edits outside of the edit war on the Jefferson article. I believe this to be grounds for a block of some sort so I have placed this matter before the administrator's noticeboard. If there is anything you can add to the report there, please do so. nonsense with thisWikiManOnespeaking drivel! 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- you beat me to it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See what I have been dealing with

[edit]

I'm sorry to say but I think you are starting to see what I have been dealing with continuously for the last 3 months and why I finally got fed up. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating proposal

[edit]

Tom, I am making a good faith effort to meld your ideas with those of Casliber and others. Please read through my explanation of the differences between the two proposals and also think about what other comments have been left on the page, including the new ideas from Hjal. I suggest that we wait until late Friday night (e.g., 11 p.m. EST) to give everyone a chance to read the page and new material that has been posted. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to the proposal you submitted that everyone seemed to agree on. Mostly little punctuation and grammer things but some did include some comments made by others that I agreed were good improvements. I used Cquote just so it looked different but feel free to change it to quote or whatever other changes you think are needed. I think we are finally getting close to getting this issue wrapped up and thank you for your help. --Kumioko (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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 been involved. Thank you. I am asking for full page protection. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A passing comment

[edit]

First I want to thank you for stepping in and trying to calm things down. I also wanted to let you know I am personally going to try and limit my responses to RP since it only seems to encourage him to leave more and more unnecessary discussions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on the Importance rating

[edit]

I hope you don't mind but there was a suggestion regarding using importance for a couple projects including the Smithsonian Collaboration and Public art about better definitions of importance and I suggested looking at the ones you made (replacing the United States with Art as appropriate) as a guide. I hope you don't mind and just wanted to let you know that your work is being appreciated by others outside the project as well. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never specifically mentioned you by name..but you may want to take a look ;)

[edit]

Hello. 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 been involved. Thank you.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

[edit]

Hi North Shoreman, a lot of your contributions fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

That's a great feature, I didn't know it was possible. Jnast1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations and False Contributions

[edit]

You accuse me, on my talk page, of engaging in an edit war. It takes two to have a war, Tom. So, by accusing me, you implicate yourself; or are you just a liar? Assuming, arguendo, that we are at war--who fired the first shots and the last? Your view must prevail or you will take hostages and burn the house. You demonstrate just how unreliable the product of this enterprise can be. Thanks to you and your Cabal, I will never take anything posted at Wikipedia at face value.74.192.7.135 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthright Citizenship

[edit]

There was no edit war as you allege. RichWales and I were negotiating a fair representation. He provided an erroneous source and I corrected it for him, rather than removing it and you count that correction as part of a 3 revert violation and an edit war? I am dealing in absolute good faith. What gives you the right to allege that I am engaged in an edit war and then impose your new viewpoint without discussing it with either me or Richwales first? Did Richwales ask you to intervene?74.192.46.84 (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln memorial/Legacy section

[edit]

We are currently attempting to bring the Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011

[edit]

As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

SPLC, npov tag

[edit]

hi. when did the neutrality tag get added to the SPLC article? a cursory look through edit history did not show that. And does anyone else besides me think that the editor Mirardre, who is arguing for criticism in the lead, bears a suspicious similarity to blocked editor Legitimateandevencompelling? (i notice the timing of the latter's departure and the former's arrival are too coincidental). btw, i am posting this question to roscolese's page as well. -aNon 12.144.160.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP United States in the Signpost

[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject United States for a Signpost article to be published on the Fourth of July. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions and responses may be trimmed if the final article becomes too long. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

[edit]

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

WikiProject United States History

[edit]

Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject United States History might be inactive or semiactive and that it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States.

I have started a discussion and will contact each of the active members for their comments and input on the suggestion. Please take a moment and add your comments to the discussion or feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

US National Archives collaboration

[edit]
 United States National Archives WikiProject
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

Know any good WikiProjects?

[edit]

I have started making a Wikipedia page purely to advertise GOOD and ACTIVE WikiProjects some users may find interesting. It’s hard for new users to find a good WikiProject. That's why I'm starting this project, to help new users find WikiProjects that are interesting and can give them a few simple jobs. At the moment, I’m looking for WikiProjects that you have been involved in which you enjoy or think new users may enjoy. To get started, all the WikiProjects need is a statement, userbox or any form of advert-so leave a message on my talk page if you have any ideas! RDN1F (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]


[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 10:24 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

[edit]

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new template

[edit]

Hi Tom! I've recently assembled a new Template:American Revolutionary War. Could you give it a look over for things I've forgotten or spaced on? Appreciate any attention you can spare. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Would you mind looking at a newly merged article?

[edit]

Hi Tom! After looking at the merge tags which have been on Redeemers and Redemption (United States history) for many years since I first noticed them, I decided boldly to fully merge them by section. I'm not much of redemption expert, but they seemed to dovetail okay. Would you mind spending a few minutes and smoothing the mess down a bit? Thanks even if you decline the invite. BusterD (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War - speedy deletion?

[edit]

Is the speedy deletion notice on "American Civil War" vandalism? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Address

[edit]

"The spirit of our age is Democracy. All for the people and all by the people. Nothing about the people, without the people. That is Democracy, and that is the ruling tendency of the spirit of our age." - Lajos Kossuth Governor of Hungary, spoken before the Ohio State Legislature, February 16, 1852, more than a decade before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

Kossuth gave a speech at Columbus, Ohio. At the Ohio State House a plaque still hangs commemorating his talk to the Ohio Joint Assembly on February 6, 1852., where A. Lincoln was one of the organizer of the event.

Lincoln's famous pharse : "government of the people, by the people, for the people." derived from this Kossuth speech. It inspired the famous phrase said by Abraham Lincoln in his funeral oration at Gettysburgh: government of the people, by the people, for the people.

ToC and article organization, CSA

[edit]

Under the discussion section "improvement", I'm not finished with the explanation yet, but I'd appreciate you checking behind me on the Table of Contents re-organization at the Confederate States of America. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal sovereignty

[edit]

I think the compromise in the Sovereignty article is fair enough, although it seems that an article about federal sovereignty is being turned into a discussion about the civil war. The cause of the civil war was disunion, not slavery. While states' rights were invoked by Northern and Southern states prior to the war, the right in question in the war was not the right to hold slaves. It was the right to secede. No federal army marched into Virginia to free slaves; this much is a historical fact. They marched to Virginia to preserve the Union by force. While I feel that inserting a slavery debate into an article about sovereignty may be appropriate in terms of self-sovereignty and the ownership principle, I don't think it is relevant to the Federal Sovereignty section of that article. I see that you're a civil war enthusiast, as am I, but the federation section of the sovereignty article is not the place for discussion of Fugitive Slave Laws and party politics of the 1860's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.206 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank—Jan15

[edit]

Hi. I understand the motivation for your last message, but could you consider self-reverting that message and restoring it after the proposal is settled? Another possibility is to open a separate section for it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Towards what end? Carmelmount has ignored the opportunity to focus on the issue and has refused to do so. I think enough energy has been expended on this point and it is time to either accept the status quo or implement the proposed change that we both accept. (USER:Steven J. Anderson chimed in when this discussion started to support the status quo.) There is a longstanding consensus on this page to reject the argument that secondary sources are suspect and should be replaced by OR using primary sources. IMO Carmelmount has a single minded agenda that requires that we suspend the policies and guidelines that interfere with that agenda.
From Wikipedia:Consensus:
"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue,[emphasis added] as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing."
Since Carmelmount's arguments, especially his most recent ones, are based on attacking the sources, alleging a conspiracy, and questioning the role of anti-Semitism, I believe his argument should, consistent with wikipedia policy, should be given little weight. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your message at Talk:Leo Frank somewhat undercuts my message and is an invitation to continue the digression, instead of focusing on the proposal. In a previous exchange I had with Carmelmount, he conceded an important point after I re-asked a question.[1] Considering the proposal is in his interest, aside from being a more accurate and appropriate way of presenting the info, how about seeing how he responds to my message first, before discussing all those other issues? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The digression problem I was concerned about didn't materialize. Carmelmount agreed to the proposal and I put it into the article. Thanks for coauthoring it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fugitive Slave Clause (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Charles Pinckney and Constitutional Convention
Hartford Convention (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Josiah Quincy and Electoral College

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Leo Frank

[edit]

Hi. I thought your idea of getting more editors involved is a good one. Unfortunatlely, the discussion afterwards between Carmelmount and me might bury that request in a lot of words. I was trying to think of some way to reformat the section to minimize that, but I couldn't think of anything too good. So I came here to see if you might be able to help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reformatted the page. Fine with me. If that doesn't work, we can try an RFC or even the reliable sources noticeboard. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank height

[edit]

FYI:

Heights of students in the front row of the Debate Club photograph on p. 281 of Cornell 1906 yearbook. The heights were obtained from the 1906 Cornell yearbook on the respective pages indicated in the table. Comparison of the students' relative heights in the photograph suggests Frank's height is more consistent with 5'8" than 5'6". Here's a copy of p.281 that is easier to view after left clicking your mouse over the image of that page.[2]

Herbert Lasher Howard Peck Leo Max Frank Charles Frederick Shaw Leslie Donald Perry
height 5–8 5–5½ 5–8 5–9 5–10
 
weight 154 125 145 178 150
pages 348–9 352–3 344–5 354–5 352–3
student # 302 390 177 451 393

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings and vandalism

[edit]

Dear North Shoreman -

Some of our interests overlap, especially on topics of early US history.

There's some vandalism that seems to be directed towards my edits on some of the sites I've made major revisions to. Embargo of 1807, Era of Good Feelings, Dallas Tariff, and number of others. If you go to these sites, you'll recognize my username. If I use it here, the vandal may follow me to your talk page.

The ratings are being low-balled - all entrys are "1", in all categories. What can be done about this? Any advice? 65.100.11.99 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to make of your request. I could not find any indication of you being harassed by a vandal. As far as ratings, I assume you are referring to the fact that although the articles have been expanded, they are still at the "start" level. This generally happens simply because nobody gets around to looking at the articles. You could either post a request for evaluation of the article at the appropriate Project Page (i.e. WP:WikiProject United States History or request a Wikipedia:Peer review. I think you can also rate the articles yourself, up to the B level -- although I'm speaking from memory and couldn't find where I got that idea from.
In any event, I would suggest you take the issue of harassment up with an administrator -- most can be communicated with by email which is a better way to insure anonymity that what you did here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Union Army regiments category discussion

[edit]

I see that you belong to the ACW task force, so could you comment on the proposals here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 13#Category:Union Army regiments. Thank you for your time. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The minor edit of Gettysburg Address and MLK's mention

[edit]

I'm glad to explain/clarify.

I looked up and read the entire text of Martin Luther King's historic "I have a Dream" speech, looking for a specific reference to the Address.

While the speech specifically mentions Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the only link to the Gettysburg Address is the similar style of their opening phrases.

I have edited to have the more-explanatory phrase ", by the style of his opening phrase," and if some other phrasing better fits your stylistic sense, you may change it, but the original text that makes one expect an explicit reference was the error that needed correction/revision. Doug C. 98.232.69.171 (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manson48

[edit]

Are you suggesting this now blocked editor is a sock, or has socks (besides all the IPs he's been using). Thanks - could you reply on my talk page please so I don't miss it? Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my addition to the African American article. Before I go for dispute resolution I'd like to give you a chance to explain yourself! Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP BULLYING ME

[edit]

STOP BULLYING ME, IT IS MEAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.51.56 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

[edit]

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City
Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City
  • This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

    Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Wichita
Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park
  • Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!
St. Louis
Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center
  • Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Uh sorry

[edit]

Yeah sorry about the whole changing twos to threes in The Battle of Cowpens.Should have used Socratic Method. The book could have been wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.161.201 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSA flag

[edit]

Please contribute your comment and/or sources at >> Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice << to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag sourced as _____ .

a) flown "everywhere" in the Confederacy, 1861-1864,
b) "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or
c) "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, North Shoreman. You have new messages at Athleek123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merger

[edit]

Hi; I closed the following merger discussion; since consensus was to merge, I'd like to see if you would be willing to complete the merge. Thanks. I've notified the other editors who contributed to the discussion as well. Talk:Opposition_to_the_American_Civil_War#Merger_proposal. --KarlB (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank Height Footnotes

[edit]

I put in a dispute request as you suggested, so hopefully we can come to consensus on putting a footnote in their about Leo Frank's correct height from two reliable sources of information. Carmelmount (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family Research Council

[edit]

I posted this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Consensus at Family Research Council. StAnselm (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you let this one go a bit longer

[edit]

The mystery of the 14th colony, and now I'll never know.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit on John Tyler page

[edit]

Hello, it said on my talk that if I thought it was a mistake to message you back. So I am. I a, just saying that I thought '"Hanging" in the blue room' would be better as "Sitting" in the blue room. I don't really care if you undid I am just pointing that out :) - Kuzey457 (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tom Cruise

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Cruise. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Louis Barthou

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Louis Barthou. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Segregation in the United States

[edit]

North Shoreman, I understand your concern over the edits that I have made not being constructive. However, I have to argue that while reading that page I took offense at nearly every sentence. I find it erroneous and racist to point a finger at "whites" for the reason "blacks" have statistically struggled financially more than others and white people are arguably the greatest factor as to why bad neighborhoods exist. Would you please edit the page to a more appropriate and accurate source of information? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.216.21 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

[edit]
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

[edit]
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi North Shoreman! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd

[edit]

Greetings!

Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I deleted had anything to do with interracial marriage. I talked to another person about it and he agreed. EVERYTHING I deleted had to do with nationality and not interracial marriage. It has no place in the interracil marriage page. 03:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshTaylor92 (talk • contribs)

sorry

[edit]
Good Job
sorry for experimenting , just wanted to see if just anybody could edit on this website Mastermike64 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank once more

[edit]

You recently deleted an edit by an IP user, stating that his edit was POV unsourced comments and overly long quote. While I would agree that the IP user's summary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision was pretty hamfisted, it wasn't POV. Neither was the submission unsourced. It was Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915). The IP included that, along with a few extra legal citations, which aren't required.

You are quite correct that the quote is overlong. Furthermore, it wasn't positioned particulary well, within the article. The "Final ruling...(etc.)" divider was inappropriate, since the previous sentence (above the divider) also concerned the same court decision, namely Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915).

And here is the rub. That previous discussion of the Supreme Court decision *only* quotes from the dissent. If there is POV, it arises from presenting only one side of a decision (in such a way as to convey an impression of the "wrongness" of the majority opinion). The whole Appeals section of the Frank article is a prime example of POV pushing.

So I think we actually NEED part of the majority opinion added to the article, to bring us back to a neutral position. We just don't need the entire quote that you deleted. A rewrite of the entire APPEALS section of the article, including a succinct summary of the majority opinion, backed up by a shorter quote, is called for. Gulbenk (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Please pardon my lack of AGF in the talk page for Cleveland. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hanghim

[edit]

Where does the "(or Hanghim)" parenthetical come from? I already suspected it to be vandalism. Googling '"hingham" "hanghim"' indicates that "or it might have been Hanghim" was merely a jocular remark by Lincoln himself (see, e. g., p. 2). Hingham, Massachusetts has no other name, AFAICT. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- the source was Lincoln himself but Burlingame did indicate he thought it was possibly a joke. I'll go ahead and delete it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the quick reaction. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Jefferson Davis

[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Jefferson Davis know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 3, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) was President of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. Born in Kentucky, he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and had a career as a soldier, fighting in the Mexican–American War. As a plantation owner, he employed slave labor as did many of his peers in the South, and supported slavery. He served as Secretary of War and U.S. senator, arguing against secession, but agreeing that each state had the right to secede. At the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, Davis was chosen as President of the Confederate States. He took personal charge of the Confederate war plans but was unable to defeat the larger, more powerful and better organized Union. He is often blamed for contributing to the fall of the Confederacy. His diplomatic efforts failed to gain recognition from any foreign country and he paid little attention to the collapsing economy. At the end of the war in 1865, he was captured and imprisoned; after his release he entered private life. He wrote a memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, eventually became a Civil War hero to many white Southerners and, in later life, encouraged reconciliation with the North. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:North_Shoreman/Archive_3&oldid=1148840970"