Jump to content

User talk:Red Harvest

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

Welcome!

Hello, Red Harvest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history Wikiproject!

[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 one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! TomStar81 (Talk) 08:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

[edit]

The January 2008 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) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Missouri Civil War articles

[edit]

Thanks for your work in cleaning up the Missouri Civil War articles. You're doing a great job! Americasroof (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award for Help with Johnny Rebel (singer) Article

[edit]
The Minor Barnstar
For help in removing a weasel word from the article Johnny Rebel (singer).

Fuze vs. Fuse for ACW Artillery

[edit]

I noticed you changed the spelling on this. While my natural inclination is to use "fuse" as well, I read an analysis of this by several of the foremost ACW artillery projectile authors (Jack Melton and Peter George at least) that reached a consensus of "fuze." http://cwpforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140 This doesn't necessarily agree with modern parlance or other armies/conflicts, but it appears to have been the appropriate term for the Union and Confederate service orndance literature. The O.R. uses "fuse" mostly but I'm not sure if those transcriptions are accurate reproductions of the (mostly volunteer civilian) officer's own handwritten spellings, or the government typesetters who were accustomed to using "fuse." As one fellow points out, percussion devices are properly termed "fuze" rather than "fuse". He seems to indicate that "fuze" would be inclusive of both burning powder train and other types. Me, I don't really care as long as I know the rules. Red Harvest (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I changed it to match modern usage and the Wikipedia article on that topic. If I sat down and thought about it for a while, I could produce a long list of spellings and grammar that have changed since 1865 that we do not attempt to duplicate in Wikipedia articles, other than in quotations. If you feel strongly about using the older term, since it is mentioned as an alternative in the Wikipedia article, I would not object as long as you maintained the link to the definitional article the first time it is mentioned. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization by religion

[edit]

The categorization of people guideline explicitly states that living people should only be classified by religion if two conditions are met: a) "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question" and b) "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." In the instances that I removed these, the person's religion had nothing to with their notable activities (and in many cases the person's religion was not mentioned in the article). For people who are not living, the second criteria does not appear to apply, so I have not removed this category from those documents. Karanacs (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people's bios (Congressional, etc.) actually list the religion, and the religion is also listed in the template. Furthermore, the description for the actual category is "The people listed below have all been members of the Methodist churches of America." And yes, as politicians, their religion is relevant in considering their public life. The category is not judgemental, it is merely a list of members. So it looks to me and others that you have clearly misapplied the criteria and should undo them all. It is absurd to remove people from a category when the same religion is still listed elsewhere on the page! That was the case in all of the ones I checked. Red Harvest (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases, the religion is not mentioned except in the infobox. In many of those cases, it is not cited at all. I also disagree that a person's religion is necessarily relevant to their political career, unless it is stated as such in the article. This may need to be debated on the guideline to get more input. Karanacs (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debating it in a guideline makes sense, but going and removing all of those without establishing a clear guideline or debating it does not make sense. I'm not Methodist and am not particularly concerned about religious affiliation, but many others are and do consider it relevant. Membership in a church, club, board, etc. is all fair game for discussion/evaluation of a political career or stance. Religion is a basic piece of information (when known) and is in the infobox. More verifiable information is better than less. The guideline appears to be more geared to preventing some sort of slandering of groups, etc. I fail to see how the current construction of the category is such that it will defame someone.Red Harvest (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current guideline is fairly clear. A simple mention of the religion (so and so is a member of church X), especially when it is uncited, does not meet the guidelines. Some people don't want to advertise their religion because it is private and not part of their public persona. Therefore, unless that person has identified themselves as being a member of a religion, it should not be in the article at all. If the religion is only mentioned in an infobox, it's probably not a part of them being notable, and the category shouldn't be included. If the article discusses the impact their religion had on them (with sources), then that makes it relevant to their notability, and the category should say. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me that you are not following that guideline. Unless wiki plans on removing religion from bios your argument makes no sense. Red Harvest (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religon Categories

[edit]

I think you meant your comment for User:Karanacs.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t get the impression that User:Karanacs was saying that religion is trivial. My impressionw was that he is more interested in the first criteria "a person must claim to be a member of the religion". For Baker, I simply found a citable source for his religion to prove that he is an active member.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any consistency in Karanacs' actions and statements on this matter. When congressional bios are listing the religion and/or it is discussed in the article (not to mention the infobox) there is no valid justification for removing the information other than Karanacs' apparent blanket assumption that religious categorization is not allowed at all for the living. Furthermore, the proper action would have been to challenge the categorization in some way rather than remove it first. Unless it is causing harm or a likely misrepresentation some time should be allowed for response. These are not after all some sort of categories that carry universal negative connotations (crime, etc.). Therefore there was no need for rash action. It has been an unfortunate waste of our time. Red Harvest (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLP, if violations of any of the guidelines about living people are found they should be corrected immediately. If you can find sourced information to make the religion relevant to the article (beyond a mention in the infobox), then you can add the category back. Karanacs (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that per WP:BLP ANY unsourced information about a living person can be removed at will, so your reverting my edits on some of these articles is in violation of WP:BLP. As we have a disagreement on the interpretation of the guideline, I've asked for more community input at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#Religion_categories_for_living_people. I will refrain from removing the category from additional edits but ask that you immediately stop reverting my previous edits. Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted only those that I found to be in error. The ones that lacked any notation of religion in the infobox or text I left alone. Red Harvest (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those you reverted had no citations, meaning that under WP:BLP the information was entitled to be removed. Guidelines for biographies of living people are more stringent than for those who are deceased; please respect that. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would believe you except that you didn't edit any of that other text or even check it. Instead it appears that you targeted a specific category and ignored the related content (including references in some cases) of those you did edit. So your argument lacks internal consistency. This looks like a case of trying to retroactively justify overzealous removal of material. Red Harvest (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... a few days late here, just catching up... if you find that Karanacs has reverted religion categories from pages where it was already cited then you need to list specific instances where he did it. Mentioning a page is good and linking to the URL of a diff where he did it is even better. Nobodies going to chack up on generalized statements. Also bear in mind we all make mistakes. I would expect Karanacs to be reaonable if you showed him specifically that he was being overzealous.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCH

[edit]

I've seen a link somewhere to the actual list as awarded by the Confederate Congress, but can not for the life of me remember where. I'm pretty sure it was attached to some individual SCV camp website. Sf46 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

[edit]
The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which States Seceded from the Union During the American Civil War?

[edit]

Hi Red Harvest, I've been following some of the discussion on the page for the Confederate States of America, and I wonder if you could assist with something. There is an animated GIF on that page which purports to show the states that seceded from the union. It currently claims that both Kentucky and Missouri seceded from the Union. This contradicts everything I have ever heard about the Civil War, contradicts several Wikipedia pages, and even contradicts the very page in which the image is featured. I've tried to talk to the creator of the image, but he seems to believe the map is an accurate representation of history.

Can you advise on how to address this situation? It bothers me to think that Wikipedia, accessed by thousands of school children, is providing inaccurate information. The animated GIF is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CSA_states_evolution.gif

Thank you for your time, -asx- (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky & Missouri both had heavy Southerner sympathies and had "rump" governments that did in fact make declarations of secession. Since each of these "rump" governments were not actually in control of their respective states when the declaration was made, it's generally not considered to be legitimate secession. Sf46 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sf46. Thank you for your response. That's what I understood, too, which is why I am of the opinion that the animated GIF is inaccurate and should be fixed. In its current incarnation, the map makes four statements which contradict other Wikipedia pages, and as far as I can tell, are untrue. Those statements:
— October 31, 1861, Missouri secedes
— November 20, 1861, Kentucky secedes
— November 28, 1861, Missouri joins Confederacy but never under CSA control
— December 10, 1861, Kentucky joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control
This information is so far from the truth that anyone who read it (and didn't know better) would come away with a completely incorrect understanding of what actually happened in those states. While it is true (as you said) that rump governments did secede, they didn't represent or control their states, and had no authority to secede or join the Confederacy. On that basis, I think the map should be corrected.
What do you think?
-asx- (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, the unelected body which arranged the "secession" of West Virginia from Virginia (not supposedly allowed to legally secede in the first place, ironically) was also "rump". Yet, the consistency of those terms is not maintained, and the unelected body is considered legit. So "rump" is a POV. If you wish to find out what really happened in Kentucky and Missouri you will not find it on wiki. Wiki is a start, but various users want to quash fair and full treatment of the topic. I recommend anyone truly interested in the history of these states independently read up on the topic. The bottom line is that the article on Wiki on the history of the CSA will simply and purely not be giving that. Much information is deleted and unallowed, despite adequate referenceability. That page is basically a "Northern" view of what various groups of edit-patrollers want people to think of the CSA. Read for yourself Missouri and Kentucky historical documents, some of which are on Wikisource.Grayghost01 (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia did have a convention and as I understand it many of them were delegates from Virginia's convention (making them elected.) I don't object to the term rump for WV's movement. It did however successfully cleave itself and unlike Missouri and Kentucky's failed secessionist movements, WV's did reflect the sentiment of the majority. (There is not an East Tennessee because the CSA was able to militarily suppress the movement in that region, illustrating the contrast with WV.)
Having independently extensively "read up" on the topic of Missouri I can tell you that the timeline and key events for Missouri are in the wiki articles. The claims of both sides are listed. Red Harvest (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dred

[edit]

Thanks for the note on the "my favorite court case is just like Dred Scott" removal - but I don't hang around a lot lately so I think it's best to be bold and nuke the whole bad section, and if somebody's angry about it they can restore it and we can argue about it. Tempshill (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; it's better to be bold. Tempshill (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bold. It violates basic civility and consensus. Red Harvest (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It improved the article. I don't think it's necessary to gingerly ask permission before removing extraneous stuff from an article. Tempshill (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it "improved" the article or not. I do know that it gutted a section with a "needs expansion" tag. So clearly it is contrary to what some others think and what they consider relevant. It was a section actively under discussion. Although I question the relevance of much of the section I wouldn't just delete it without posing the question first. It's just plain rude and uncivil to do that and shows no respect for other editors. You might not see a problem with your actions, but I do. For one, they are proving counterproductive as you've forced me to take the other side on this, a side I am not inclined to take. Furthermore, it is specious to conclude that just deleting material you disagree with is necessarily an improvement. You didn't add any content or references, you took an axe to something. Red Harvest (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, reaching consensus on Wikipedia doesn't mean that consensus has to be reached before changes are made. That's directly against the WP:BOLD guideline. I disagree that it's rude or uncivil. Carefully feeling out an unknown number of anonymous editors before venturing to make changes isn't the way to improve articles, unless it's on some sort of hyper-touchy political article. In this case, the axe was warranted. That section should be expanded, yes; but not by including lists of favorite court cases that some people claim speciously is "the next Dred Scott case". Tempshill (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should have read the … but don't be reckless warning in the guideline. That's how it appears, even to someone like myself who would agree about aspects of the relevance. Being reckless undercut your own argument. Red Harvest (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

[edit]

The February 2008 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) 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSA Talk

[edit]

I just want to give you a friendly "Well Done" for your recent work on the CSA talk page. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx

[edit]

For finding the errors .... it shouldn't take a minute to change it. I knew I had two mapped onto Caleb Smith, but I wasn't aware I'd got them mixed up. I will try and include a link in the template so people can see how to fix it. You do need a specialist (but easy and free) tool. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fixed now... could you check? Victuallers (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Graphic Lab request

[edit]

Hi Red Harvest,

In case you're not watching the Graphic Lab page anymore, I wanted to let you know that I have created what I think is a suitable CSA map for you. There's a name conflict right now, but see my most recent comment for a link to the commons page. (I have a rename request pending over there.)

I also wanted to explain what it was about your request which confused me personally and caused me to be unsure how to proceed, and that was your mention of the "original image" versus "the one that has been in use." (You also mentioned the "larger" image several times.) From later comments, I believe you meant different revisions of the same (Wikipedia) image. I read that as multiple images that had been uploaded under different names, but then there was only one image in the gallery, and that one had a blank preview. So in my 30 second review, I just decided the situation was confused and I didn't want to spend time making the wrong map. I figured you would clarify (which you arguably did on 20 March, but then there were more questions…). We're not dullards, but we do have lots of tasks to choose from and we tend to choose the fast 'n' easy ones over something where there's perceived confusion.

Anyway, let us know if the new image is correct, or if you want to go with the other svg of this which I found by accident. (See my last comment.) Thanks!— ʞɔıu 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACW bios

[edit]

Wow!!!!!  ????? I only removed the link for Stoughton (see explanation). Not sure why others disappeared. Very strange. I have no objections whatsoever to these additional names. I merely wanted to get rid of Edward H. Stoughton, an old red link that is really Edwin H. Stoughton, for which an article has existed for some time. Scott Mingus (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange indeed. I went back and wiped out the Stoughton link again, and this time, it's all that disappeared. By the way, keep up the good work, and I look forward to your continued articles! I've been busy writing my next ACW book, which just went to the publisher, so now I will take some time for Wiki again. Scott Mingus (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Battle of Athens

[edit]

This was one of those articles that is rather iffy on section II. I simply think that the "battle" section needs to be expanded slightly. Do that, and I have absolutely no problems with it passing on criteria II.

Also understand that I'm not an expert on the topic, my primary area being World War I & II. If it was a small-scale battle, then perhaps that's all it needs. If you feel that it has as much as it needs, I have no issues with you changing that to a "pass" in that category.

Assessment in categories II & IV is purely subjective.

Thanks for the note, Cam (Chat) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the CSA article...

[edit]

I think, at this point, we may need to ask for arbitration. We are simply going round and round and round in circles, which is doing nothing, essentially, but wasting OUR time, of which could be better spent rewriting the article rather than going back and forth with anonymous quotes trawled from the internet. SiberioS (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree then, to just leave it and revert and modify as needed. I plan on simply doing what happened with the Military History article; updating and re-writing the article with scholarly sources and seeing if the other editor blinks and leaves the page alone. I've been meaning to rewrite the section about international diplomacy anyways. SiberioS (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On more reflection, I disagree, partially. The CSA argument for secession was clearly states rights in the interest of slavery. I don't think there are substantial scholarly argument against that. And I don't think it'd be fair to let people rewrite what they WISHED causation of the war to be, something Davis and other Southerners attempted to do in a raft of memoirs, books, and screeds after the war. SiberioS (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

[edit]

The March 2008 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) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate States of America

[edit]

Next time bub before you undo an edit, discuss it first and btw there is a difference between a legitimate edit and vandalism. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting what you did at the top of the page constitutes vandalism. It is not the subject, "bub". Red Harvest (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you are wrong, it provides a link to a similar Wikipedia article, so you knock it off! Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boy this is gonna hurt, but I have to agree with Red Harvest on this issue. I moved the link to the movie down to the bottom in the external link section, which seems to be a more appropriate place for it. Sf46 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "similar" at all. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry book, movie, comic book, etc. shouldn't be posted as the introduction to an article. If you want to put it somewhere in "See Also" etc. I would let others pass judgement on it (at that point it is approaching trivia.) However the way you did it, Simon Bar Sinister, looks and feels like vandalism. I will remove it and tag it as such as often as I see it up there on the masthead. Red Harvest (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
For your great work on all the review done on the Battle of Marion article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

[edit]

The April 2008 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) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

[edit]

The May 2008 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) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

[edit]

The June 2008 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) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- George Todd article

[edit]

Thanks so much for correcting my spelling and other errors on the George M. Todd article. I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote it (due to outside commitments pressing on my time), and I didn't get a chance to proofread it properly. Also, on the First Battle of Independence article, I fully concur with your decision to incorporate the info on Todd's death into the preceeding paragraph. It indeed makes more sense, given what you wrote in the edit subject line. But I removed the ( ) because that info formed a self-contained sentence, and I just thought it looked better without them. If you disagree, please let me know. Again, thanks for the edit help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Todd

[edit]

Thanks for writing! I'm with you on Todd; I really don't know much more about him myself than what went into the article. The only reason I created it to begin with was because I was doing research on the two Battle of Independence articles and I ran across some detailed info on him. Much beyond that limited data I really don't know. Right now I've been working on some religious articles related to my Faith, but when I get back to the history articles (of which Todd's is one) that I've been working on, I hope to be able to find some more info--including references for that info you gave me about the Lawrence raid. I'm hoping to get some additional information on the Second Battle of Independence off the local historical markers (of which there are several) soon, including some photos of different battle sites as they look today. Thanks so much for your imput and interesting research! God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Regarding your edit here, the apostrophe looks different. That could be why the page was red linked.--Rockfang (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, they look the same on my PC, must be something wiki has done as I created all of those original links on the same machine, same keyboard. Thanks for noticing. Any idea what the difference is? Red Harvest (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The old one looks like a curved apostrophe and the new one is more straight. I just tried to paste them both here and oddly, they both just showed up as the straight version.--Rockfang (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is some sort of problem with how wiki is saving apostrophes in the red links. My guess is that it is using a single interior quotation mark rather than an apostrophe. (It might even have just been an issue with changes made during a certain time period.) For some reason wiki has saved the apostrophe in those redlinks as: %E2%80%99 when it should be %27. This is something Wikipedia should fix...I'm just not sure who to relay the info to. Red Harvest (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

[edit]

The July 2008 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) 02:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truce?

[edit]

How about following some of the advice mentioned here? I'm not some kind of deranged monster, I am a Wikipedian with a passion for neutrality. I may appear stubborn, but hey, why not include some of the brickbats too? Aren't readers entitled to know about all sides of the discussion (from reliable sources, of course :-) ). I'm sure we can accommodate each other's foibles. How about burying the hatchet and cooperating to create a worthy article. -- de Facto (talk). 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not apparent to me that you understand what a truce is. Following this "offer" you have only continued the same argumentative, consensus-rejecting ways that has resulted in an impasse between you and all of the other editors. Until you understand what consensus means there is no "truce" because you immediately violate it. Red Harvest (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have honoured the truce. Our edit warring has stopped, and discussion has replaced it. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. You haven't convinced me yet on either point, and I obviously haven't convinced you. The talk needs to continue to resolve these issues of POVs. -- de Facto (talk). 08:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have continued as before. You've just moved your edit warring and POV lobbying to the talk page. And it is your warring since you refuse to accept the reasoning or consensus of other participants, including mine, while pushing YOUR extremist minority position. Red Harvest (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding 3rrr

[edit]

Regardind: That last revert of yours was a serious mistake as it appears to be a direct 3 revert rule violation. I'm inclined to cut you a little slack at this moment, but I doubt others will be as generous. My suggestion is to put the page back as it was to show good faith for a hasty edit. I think there is some room for aspects of fact to be addressed in the article, but not of tone as you are adding. The way you are approaching it is not constructive. Red Harvest (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look back through the history of the page edits, I did some very minor editing on two items: (a) I corrected Virginia's secession date to the May popular-vote ratification election, to make this consistent with all the other ACW pages on Virginia. Please examine these other pages on Virginia to see what I mean.

Then, I noticed the section on the territories was nominal and did not clearly explain that Arizona territory had seceded on a particular date, and did not clearly indicate it's difference in status relative to other territories (such as Oklahoma) which did not exist in the CSA on the same legal status. Thus I performed minor editing again.

But this page is as it was originally, per the diligence of User:JimWae. The same gent who at first claims that the Arizona secession date was not allowed because the article split dates on the "March 4" lincoln date. So I moved it to the second grouping. Then he deletes that, and re-writes the prose to talk about an "April 12" split and "confederate attack" as the grouping pardigm. At this point, the article is blatantly off fact, because the second grouping of states did NOT seceded because of an "April 12" "confederate attack". Thus User:JimWae has bascially driven the article into the ground. I tried one last time to put in a cited reference for why those last states "claim" they seceded, per the Hotchkiss book reference, so we can have the right basic understanding, the correct two groupings, and then get Arizona's secession date (March 16 by the way) somehow in there, and I put in in new sub-section on territories, thus treating it differently.

Then you step in and remove the clearly incorrect graphic. But not before User:North Shoreman also steps in a deletes all the changes too (another user that does not like my Winchester in the American Civil War article, that is one of the better articles of the ACW on Wiki.

So ... I created an UNDO that fixed it all, and left your proper graphic edit in. And thus ... I have put my dispute tag on. I have better things to do. It would have been nice to have the framework of this article correct, so it could be used for reference, including my own.

I don't know what else to say. The bottom line is that the 2nd group of states seceded for a very specific historical event, which was neither April 12, nor March 4. Secondly, Arizona seceded on March 16. Grayghost01 (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

[edit]

The August 2008 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) 00:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Grayghost01. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Thanks for the heads up! The vandalism, however has to be recent. I don't think there are specific time frames, but after a day or two, you have to rewarn the vandals. Ya, it stinks, but not much can be done, that I know of. Ctjf83Talk 02:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, although I don't care, per here it is unnecessary to revert the deletion of warnings, as they are in the history page. :) Ctjf83Talk 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if he does it again within the next day or two, and you see it first, report him here. Give a reason of something like "continually inserting incorrect information, after being warned". Thanks, Ctjf83Talk 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it wouldn't be a 3RR situation, because that has to be more than 3 edits with in a 24 hour period. Ctjf83Talk 16:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop readding warnings to his page. Per this link he is allowed to delete anything off his talk page, including warnings. You keep adding them, is only gonna instigate him, and make him madder. He has been blocked for 3 days. Thanks, Ctjf83Talk 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also just found this which says you could be 3RR blocked for repeatedly readding his warnings, after he deletes them. Ctjf83Talk 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will re-add the full list whenever he revandalizes. He has plenty of warnings and folks need to be aware of that when he re-offends so that we can cut out unnecessary minor warnings and skip right to the disciplinary measures. Otherswise we get this Ground Hog day scenario. Wiki is poorly structured for dealing with this sort of thing. Besides, have you noticed that he is also vandalizing several user's talk pages by deleting other's post to them? He deleted stuff I had not even read. That is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE! Red Harvest (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, however, I don't want you to be blocked for readding his warnings. If a user takes 60 seconds to look at talk page history, and block logs, they shouldn't just start with the first warning anyway. Ctjf83Talk 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the warnings I've observed on wikipedia do not do as you suggest. The Ground Hog day scenario is the most common. Most vandalism is not even flagged with a warning as best I can tell. After a few experiments with it on IP vandals I concluded it was a waste of time. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is structured to punish legitimate editing in favor of vandals. Red Harvest (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Futhermore, what you linked to was an essay not policy and at the top it says, "You may heed it or not, at your discretion." It is not unreasonable to repost a list of warnings during a time when an editor is actively vandalizing pages. In fact it serves as a useful reminder for that intransigent editor and for others (non-administrators) trying to determine what action to take. One should not have to pick through what might be an extensive edit history to find such information, it is nonsensical to do so. Red Harvest (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a FYI, I replied to your query at Wikipedia talk:Don't restore removed comments#Ridiculous policy. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT!

[edit]

STOP CALLING ME VANDAL! YOU TOLD HIM THAT I'M A VANDAL! I'M NOT VANDAL! YOU ARE! NOW STOP RE-ADDING WARNINGS ON MY TALKPAGE! Emir34 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the warnings need to be present to show other editors you are a persistent vandal and should be banned. You've had more than enough warning already. By the way, removing info from other's talk pages is discouraged as best I can tell. You are looking at multiple violations and should be permanently banned from editing in my opinion. Red Harvest (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

[edit]

The September 2008 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) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

[edit]

The October 2008 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) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

[edit]

The November 2008 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) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

[edit]

The December 2008 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) 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

[edit]

The January 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) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

[edit]

The February 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) 23:32, 3 March 2009 (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☛ 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

[edit]

Hello, Red Harvest! 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) 21:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

[edit]


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 17 May 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) 23:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:57, 14 August 2011 (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] 00:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[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 20:11, 24 May 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) 09:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding WikiProject Kansas

[edit]

I have started a discussion about making WikiProject Kansas a standalone project separate from WikiProject United States. Please join the discussion at the WikiProject Kansas talk page.

You are receiving this notice because you are in Category:WikiProject Kansas members.

Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flag disruption

[edit]

An alternative flag which is repeatedly disruptive of Jefferson Davis page and other Confederate personalities is the “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” as identified by the CSA, Inc. Placing this flag on historical articles is pushing that organization’s POV. In the case of the Jefferson Davis article, tag team: Lieutcoluseng and ProudIrishAspie disrupt without discussion at Talk, where I have posted researched sources for the “stars and bars” flag. ProudIrishAspie has received three ANI blocks for posting infobox flag disruption.

Stars and Bars - the Confederate flag of history that J. Davis served 1861-1865, and personally flew 1867-1908 while still not a US citizen.

Jeff Davis served under the "Stars-and-Bars", the history article at WP should picture the flag of his time, the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865.

The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was adopted in a rump Congress as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.

In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.

The Tearoom suggested an RfC because at the instant of the Featured Article award for the article, the BSB was showing. I have been blocked once elsewhere for 3R trying to maintain the results of a DR in the face of more experienced tag-team editors. How should I proceed to bring resourced information to the encyclopedia without an edit war -- whenever the infobox flag is again disrupted, as it has four times before? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri 'Black bear' flag.

[edit]

‪

MO State Guard (Secessionist)

My first contributions to CSA was in the state flag table (Virginia's was not then included). WP did not have an image for Missouri, so I emailed the Missouri Secretary of State and got blanket permission to use the image on that webpage Missouri Flags for WP. Another more experienced editor captured the image for the commons. I could not tell if you still needed the image for some application. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Red Harvest. You have new messages at Talk:Torpedo cruiser.
Message added 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--benlisquareT•C•E 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to First Battle of Lexington may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Col. Routt arrested several prominent Union men, including former Missouri governor [[Austin A. King] and surrounded the post. He demanded Becker's surrender but this was refused.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liberty Arsenal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mexican War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery in the United States

[edit]

I will defer to you. But I would like to point out that the edit says the "economic cost" of the emancipation and the war; it does not say the cost to the government. The cost to the government in the Ransom article is higher than the cost of emancipation, though perhaps one could assert that they are close enough. The cost of emancipation is not nearly as high as the $10.36 billion total cost, as revised downward by Ransom from the source used by Ransom in his article. The two other points in the edit are more directly stated by Ransom and cannot be misunderstood. I think that my interpretation of the edit to Slavery in the United States, after reading the Ransom article, was justified. Your point is correct, if so explained. I think my edit summary was enough to show I had read the article and where my conclusion came from. I know this is your area of interest, and perhaps I misread Ransom, so I will leave it at that. Donner60 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other two points were a major reason for my revert. They are also critical to understanding why compensated emancipation had little support. One could extend this by pointing out that Southern leaders were vehemently opposed to the concept leading up to the war, and this continued in border states during the war even when national emancipation had become a near certainty. One would have expected these states' leaders to have jumped at the chance to get some form of payment, but that was not the case. Getting back to the cost side of it Ransom paraphrases(?) Gunderson in stating that it made "economic sense" to go to war based on the expenditures as it would have to buy out the slaveholders. And while it is not stated in the wiki article, the actual cost of the war was unknown in the run up to war. Indeed, most on both sides expected the war to be short and therefore far less expensive than it actually was. An economist might go on a riff here about "imperfect market knowledge."
There is likely some room for improving and clarifying the way the economic case is phrased in the sentence, although I'm not sure what the best way would be to distill it down. However, it provides needed counterpoint to the earlier claim that emancipated compensation would have been far less expensive--which as noted above was never an acceptable plan to those who actually owned the slaves, regardless of price. Emancipated compensation sounds good on the surface, but when one starts to consider the massive transfer of wealth, period limitations on govt. revenue, as well as Southern resistance to any weakening of their race based economy & social structure, one can understand why compensated emancipation had so little support in any quarter. Red Harvest (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the explanation. I see a further problem with my revert in that I recognized and agreed at the outset with the two further points. I should have left those in and tried to clarify the language. I have to admit that I took the lazy way when I really only questioned the first point. You are spot on here. Emancipated compensation never would have been accepted, in part because no one could have guessed the human and economic cost of a civil war. That much is clear. It is only in hindsight that the comparisons are possible. Even then, what to include and how to measure it is somewhat arguable. Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TexasReb 3RR

[edit]

I left an additional warning on his talk page. I counted his reverts at three -- I believe that several reverts made around the same time w/o any intervening edits only count as one revert. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2014 (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! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski

[edit]

Traveling, so in brief--no objection. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Slave State gif

[edit]

I made the original images for use in Territorial evolution of the United States (where you will see that the Platte Purchase and Kansas Territory are accurately represented), but I did not make this GIF, nor did I do the modifications (like the colors) for the GIF. Sorry, I had nothing to do with it so I have no capacity to help fix it. The bare images are available at the link above if you want to take a crack at it, though. --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain howitzer

[edit]

Thanks for your research on the howitzer photograph. I am pretty sure you are correct and that my notetaking in the field years ago was careless. I have filled out the form on Wikimedia Commons to rename it and we will see what results. See [1] Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles: Wilson's Raid and Battle of Selma

[edit]

Hi, Red Harvest. I, by no means, am an expert on the American Civil War. Still, I noticed where you reverted two edits of mine in which I had relied upon a primary source stating that all but two houses were destroyed ("sacked") by the Union Army. You have claimed that this information is disputed. Can you please tell me by who, and why Parsons' report, in your opinion, is unreliable? Thanks! FYI: Earlier, I had written: "The scale of destruction was so great that every house in the city was sacked, except two." I had cited Samuel Sullivan Cox's book, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, 1855 to 1885, Mills 1885, p. 402 (Based on the eye-witness account of Alabama's Provisional Governor, Lewis E. Parsons). Be well.- Davidbena (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because not all houses but two were destroyed. That was the problem from the start: unintentional misreading of a primary source. The author/witness is making a claim about soldiers entering homes and perhaps taking things, etc., not burning per se. Definition is: "the plundering of a place by an army or mob, usually involving destruction, slaughter, etc." That can mean burning, or not. It can mean theft/taking or not--which appears to be the primary thrust of the wording. It can mean killing or other "crimes against persons". The following site has historical antebellum homes in Selma, there are a lot more than 2 still standing ~150 years later (look at the other associated pages in the link.) http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc15/selma_homes2.htm Jones book about the raid spends a few pages talking about the aftermath in general, and the Southern claims as well, comparing and contrasting various accounts. This sort of exaggeration has become a stereotype in ACW stories. (A few years ago I had a diehard Reb try to lecture me on how rascal yanks burned some town near him in NC when they occupied it, can't recall the name at the moment. When I researched it online I learned that the Confederates set it on fire as they were leaving, and the yanks put it out...and wanted to put the burners they had captured on trial if I recall the reports correctly. But that wasn't the story that was being passed down locally.) Red Harvest (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thorough answer. I agree with you that not all houses, but two, were burnt. The reference is perhaps to pillaging. Have a nice day, and, THANKS again! - Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mississippi in the American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Corinth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more of these "Republic of..." pages?

[edit]

Good catch. Let's make sure we get them all at once. I've noticed Louisiana secession and Republic of South Carolina which look like merge candidates. Only the Texas Republic deserves its own pagespace, and that's because it occurred more than a dozen years before the ACW. BusterD (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making you aware of this conversation

[edit]

Hi there. I'm on Wikibreak, but thought you might want to know about this. Guy refuses to acknowledge others disagree. BusterD (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Confederate States Army may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • prod2/decennial/documents/1890a_v1p2-14.pdf 1890 U.S. Census, pg. 3] Note that the value is 3,273 (the pdf image is grainy and looks like 8,273 but the sum is incorrect if the first digit is read as

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Red Harvest. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Presidential Election State Totals

[edit]
A lot of those totals, if I'm remembering correctly as I did them quite some time ago, are from a series of books on Presidential Elections by Arthur Schlesinger Jr from which I have also derived other information that I have posted to Wikipedia. While the information itself is a bit dated, having been compiled sometime in I think 1970 (I don't have a copy next to me presently), I have found it more accurate than other sources, though I don't intend to claim that it is infalliable. I'll try tomorrow to provide a proper citation for those articles you mentioned however at the very least . --Ariostos (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm 99.9% certain that what I'm seeing is multiple transcription errors in your original edits. When I loaded your figures in a spreadsheet the cross checks did not work. Other sites totals did (their cross checks were consistent.) Their overall tallies agreed with official election totals as well. Red Harvest (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at the college attending class presently, but in about an hour or so I can check the books and see, concurrently, if I transcribed the data improperly and where the data Schlesinger used originated from, in the aforementioned cases at the very least. --Ariostos (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through Schlesinger's "History of Presidential Elections, its quite clear that it is not where I got the state-by-state information from, in fact it is impossible given the number of transcription errors that would have had to have occurred. Still, I have a feeling that some of his numbers are not going to match up given quite a few of his sources are now sixty-five years of age, or more. Ultimately though you were right, those numbers weren't accurate and for the present should be wiped from the page until accurate ones are placed. Thank you for bringing this to light, even if its slightly embarassing for me. --Ariostos (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Columbiad photo

[edit]

Upon review of the "10-inch Columbiad" photo and caption I'm pretty convinced that the author posted the right description but the wrong photo. The weapon in question looks much like the 50-pdr Columbiad of 1811, which is credited to Bomford, so I've altered the captions to suit that in the Commons and on other pages.RobDuch (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baxter Springs

[edit]

Hi there. Please be kind to ip editor 209.114.111.36. That new user seems to have their heart in the right place. Gentle and friendly guidance might entice the user to register an account and continue contributing. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added: great work not losing your cool on T:CSA. That disruptive editor will likely find a slightly less forgiving environment if/when they return. BusterD (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to be gentle and have focused on the part that appears to be problematic, leaving the other edits. That's why I initiated the discussion on the talk page and gave guidance in edit summaries. It's not a big issue (the wording) but it smacks of trying to put spin on a disaster and that is something we should avoid unless there is a good reason. Otherwise there would be some merit to an NPOV dispute. Red Harvest (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying of a discussion at AE where I used your name

[edit]

A discussion is taking place at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in which I used your name as an example of someone in dispute with User:Dicklyon. You may not wish to comment, but notifying you is the right thing to do. BusterD (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited First Battle of Sabine Pass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabine River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

I would like to express my sincerest apologies for my harshness. I've been having to deal with a lot of stubborn people who think they know everything, many of whom have been less than courteous, and I have never been a patient man. I'm afraid the frustration has been getting to me. As for the article, I provided a list of sources on the talk page. One of them contains a letter written in early 1861 that gives the name of the independent state as "the Republic of Louisiana". I hope that will suffice for the name. I will add them as soon as I can get the opportunity. I have been quite busy lately, so it may take awhile. Feel free to go through them if you want. The letter is in there somewhere. Should they prove insufficient, I will happily look up more. Thank you for your patience, and please forgive me for my harshness. Anasaitis (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Outlaw Josey Wales

[edit]

Hello
I edited this page a while ago, as it had a wad of background information on the author in the Introduction and a summary of that information in the Production section. I reversed these (with this edit) as I thought the introduction should summarize the content of the article, not the other way round. You subsequently restored the full background info to the top (here), leaving the same piece of text appearing twice; that, I suggest, is crying out for someone to delete one lot as duplication.
So, if you feel that would be undesirable, can I suggest you either put the summary back in the Production section (cancelling my edit) or in the Introduction (cancelling yours)? I'll leave it to you which. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits to U.S. Presidential Elections

[edit]
I had posted this in the WikiProject Talk previously, but given there was no response I'm personally messaging you and a couple other members for their own thoughts. More edits had been done as of yesterday without complaint, so I'm again seeking clairification. --Ariostos (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious if the latest edits to the US Presidential Elections, principally by Ericl, are actual adopted policy by the Project membership; in simple terms it amounts to the removal of the candidate and balloting sections, to be replaced instead with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates nominated (though Ericl's latest edit in 1856 neglect this), with the balloting for those offices being relegated to the Convention articles. The recent edits to the 1860 most exemplify this apparent "new direction". --Ariostos (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2015 (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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

[edit]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting

[edit]

Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 05/09/2023

[edit]
Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 08/08/2023

[edit]
Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Red_Harvest&oldid=1177732805"