User talk:MrPrada/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Louisville in the American Civil War

Thanks for the great catch. It is indeed supposed to be Hugh Ewing rather than Ewing Bloom. I talked to the original author of the content and he said the wrong name came from earlier research that used a reference that turned out to not be very credible. Cheers! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

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! Carom 02:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ACW Bios

Hello,

Nice additions to Henry Baxter. You may also want to check out Roeliff Brinkerhoff, Hugh Boyle Ewing, Charles Ewing and St. John R. Liddell. I plan on adding Gabriel R. Paul this afternoon. It's nice to have someone reviewing my articles and checking them for accuracy and proper formatting. Thanks! MrPrada 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a knack for finding the lesser-known folks. :-) I'll check out Paul later. You may wish to look at my ACW style guide if you'd like to match styles with many of the other ACW bios. Hal Jespersen 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough local elections

Hello. Thankyou for reviewing this article. I must say however, that I thought your comments were rather harsh. Have you much experience of British local government? In particular, (2) Factually accurate, there are many statements which need citations including, Although the powers of the Mayor have diminished over time, the role has retained its importance. This is practically the only paragraph not now referenced, but is not controversial in the context of local government in the United Kingdom; (3) Broad in coverage, given the limited scope and nature of the article, I am at a loss to think of what else to include. The Armorial bearings are entirely appropriate as they are granted to the city council rather than the city itself, and with the Mayoralty these are important civic symbols. The heraldic description is correct and there is no template available for local elections. The Mayoralty are elected, although this is by the council rather than directly. They are of course, elected as councillors first; (4) Neutral point of view, Iffy. Sentences like "The Mayor has a key democratic role to play as well." This is essentially the same as at (2), as is my response; and finally, (6) Images, I have to admit I have no idea what you are referring to here. Perhaps someone who knows what they are doing could correct the tag. I consider coats of arms to be in the public domain and their inclusion is certainly fair use in this context. Thanks. 163.167.129.124 09:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Do you have any response to make to this..? 163.167.129.124 11:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Bock

I've just nominated this for speedy deletion as it makes very serious allegations about living people which were not immediately verifiable. The New York Times link is subscription only and I couldn't identify the article in the Buffalo News link. It seems to me that heavy allegations need impeccable sources, WP:LIVING ROGER TALK 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Understandable. However, being from Yorktown, I have to say that the information is very verifiable. The scandal from '95 is still an issue to this day, there has not been another Democratic Supervisor in over a decade because of it. I cannot force the times to make the article available for free. Not sure why you're having problems with the Buffalo article, try using Google Archive. In any case, Bach's closing the theater, the million dollar mistake, and the Superintendent fleeing to Arizona, are all facts, I in no way meant to disparage him or make personal attacks(I'm not even sure if he's still alive), I am simply trying to add all of the Town Supervisors in Yorktown History. MrPrada 07:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
as I said on that talk page, I think it dubious that all the town supervisors in Yorktown -- a town of 36,000 -- are likely to be notable. But before I see what the community thinks at AfD, perhaps you can explain to me why they will in general will have other than purely local interest. WP does include mayors of large cities as a matter of course, but I think Yorktown is at least an order of magnitude too small. (obvious this will not apply if they are individually notable for some reason). DGG (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, I bet that most of them would be considered noteable in one way or another. Even in a town of 36,000, it is difficult to become top dog. The position of Town Supervisor in New York it self has it's own category here, and many of the articles contained within are not about Supervisors who went on to bigger and better things. Considering that Yorktown is one of the larger towns, and part of Westchester, which is arguably the 2nd most notable place in New York. But that is neither here or there. I believe the criteria for Notability (people) include:
    • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I submit that the New York Times, Journal News, Daily News, etc., which all have and are likely to continue running articles on Town Supervisors in Yorktown are reliable, intellectually independent(most of the time) and independent of the subjects.
    • The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. This holds true for nearly all of them, be it from the Town Clerk's office, the Town Historian, or actual biographies. The current town supervisor actually published a book with the biography for each of them.
    • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Nearly all of the Town Supervisors are bound to meet this criteria.
    • For Politicians: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. (Note 4: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists) A google Archive search for any of the supervisors in the 20th century exceed the standard in this case, as would probably occur in Anytown, USA. If there are articles on Theaters, and Parks, and Roads, and Malls, and Highschools, then I think the people who are responsible for or are connected to them in one way or another should be written about as well, this is an encyclopedia after all--especially when there are numerous sources available online, and at your local bookstore or library.
  • I think bottom line is here, an article about any politicans is required to meet one of the minimum expecations for a standard of notability. In the case of Town Superviors in New York, it exceeding them is commonplace. MrPrada 07:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Aaron Bock

Well, I can't stay up any longer to see how this plays out, but I'd like to add before bed that I think it would be a shame if this article were to be deleted on the basis of notability (considering it was flagged for being an attack). There are 400 some odd articles in the Female Porn Star category, none of which are sourced, what does this say about notability if we're going to keep those and get rid of Town Supervisor articles? Perhaps they both should be gotten rid of. I happen to believe there is room for both. Just food for thought from a random contributor. MrPrada 08:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

comments on Notability

Notability of local people is a general problem, often causing inconclusive discussions at AfD, and --even worse--discussions that result in different decisions for essentially similar articles. (and I think inconsistency is clear evidence of unreliable decision making--we haven't been worrying about it here, but I suspect that's mainly to avoid discussing our failures when we see no easy way to prevent them). There is a tension between two principles, of two good sources for notability, and all the special rules for significance--as I see it, this tension has prevented consensus on several attempts over this past year to rework and restate the general notability criteria. The actual current practice, usually, at AfD seems to be to use the specific rules when possible, the sources criterion if nothing else works, and general feeling about what fits into an encyclopedia and particularly this encyclopedia.

As for comparisons with different types of articles, about a dozen articles on non-notable porn "stars" are deleted literally every day.

But, as I said, i dont intend to go further on notability grounds at the time. DGG (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yorktown

Hi. I removed this cat from U.S. Route 6 in New York because Yorktown is just one of many communities the highway passes through in the state ... if we had cats for all of them, the box at the bottom would be terribly confusing.

What I'm thinking of doing instead is starting a "Communities along U.S. Route 6" cat, possibly further divided by state. We could put the Yorktown article in that. Daniel Case 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Town supervisor articles

Discussion of notability of Aaron Bock and the Town supervisor articles continued on Archive 1 page for continuity--if this is unsuitable, please move or copy the thread to this page. I'll just say here that I do NOT intend to personally bring AfDs against these articles if there is a reasonable defense. That's why I asked here first--people placing afds when they are sure of themselves usually just place them, and let the defense continue at the AfD. I asked first because they were obviously well-prepared and carefully thought out articles. DGG (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike Cole fyi...

Category:New York Republicans is a subcategory of Category:Republicans (United States), so adding both to the article is a bit of an over-kill. Cornell Rockey 16:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Kieran Lalor

Hi MrPrada. You are off to such a great start on the article Kieran Lalor that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Benjamin Bonheur

Hi MrPrada. You are off to such a great start on the article Michael Benjamin Bonheur that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply re:RoseMarie Panio / category inclusion

In response to your question, at the top of the category pages that were removed categories they state that they are for Elections in the United States in the year ----. As RoseMarie Panio is not an election but a candidate she would not belong in those categories.--Tdl1060 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding election articles with nested election results, I can see pros and cons to including them in categories for specific years, but if it would help provide easier navigation for some readers, I personally would not have a problem with it. I don't think there's any official rule either way.--Tdl1060 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Ruth Hassell-Thompson

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ruth Hassell-Thompson, by GBenemy (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ruth Hassell-Thompson is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ruth Hassell-Thompson, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Ruth Hassell-Thomspon

Hi there! I noticed you have tagged Ruth Hassell-Thompson for speedy deletion due to inadequate context. As an experienced editor, I have to tell you that I was a little suprised seeing this done (if anything, I would have expected it to be tagged for notability). In any case, I barely had any time to finish formatting the article before you tagged it. You might want to give the benefit of the dobut to people with thousands of edits to topics like these, especially when discussing when the context is clear, e.g. State Senators, etc. You might want to familiarize yourself with Wiki:What links here? in the future before tagging something. Thanks for your time and for checking out one of my edits. MrPrada 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I am still unfamiliar with all the tags that are possible, and at the time of reading your article I thought that the inadequate context was appropriate for it. However, a little while later I noticed several other articles by you that were exactly the same only about different senators that I realised what you were doing, and my mistake, however I couldn't remember the article that I tagged. The tag has been removed now (I hope I'm allowed to do that, if not just put it back and I'll agree to your {{hangon}} section on the discussion page. However, I hope this incident doesn't impeach any future relations we may have, as I am still quite new to Wikipedia and was just trying to help out in any way possible. GBenemy (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't sweat it! Thank you for the civil discourse. It's good to know there are people out there patrolling for vandals or spam, etc. All I would ask is that in the future you take a look at the editor, see if they've made similar edits or are part of a project, and give them a couple of minutes to improve upon the placeholder article before tagging it. ;) Again, thanks for your help. The article is now up in it's preliminary stage. MrPrada 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed after removing the db tag just now it had been upgraded significantly. Thanks for your suggestions and I will certainly follow them next time I find myself in a similar situation. If you would like any help writing that (or any other) article, I would be happy to give as much input as possible, because I want to contribute to Wikipedia in as many ways as I can. Also, as an "experienced editor" I would like to ask for your help, because my articles aren't really that good editorially-wise and any advice on how to create good articles would be very much appreciated. My main problem is citing. I have no problem with creating noteable and verifiable articles (I am against plagiarism 100%) but the problem is, I never seem to know exactly what needs to be verified and what constitutes an acceptable source. (Please don't put me to WP:V, WP:N or WP:Cite, I have read through each of these countless number of times, I just can't get the grasp on them. Any and all advice and support you could give me would be appreciated. Once again, sorry for tagging your article. GBenemy (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


That is a very interesting question. I myself struggle with what I should cite, and what I shouldn't. I'll try and list a few guidelines I use for myself, and give you some examples from my articles.
  • For biographical data, 'e.g. Joe Snuffy is a graduate of XYZ university' one source (major newspaper, book with ISBN, etc.) is usually acceptable, and may be placed in the references section, with applicable page numbers placed in the notes section (if you are relying on that source for multiple facts, see Hugh Ewing).
  • For specific accomplishments e.g. awards, a direct-link to the awarding authority, or a citiation from an article or website noting it, would be acceptable, at least to me as a reader. (see RoseMarie Panio for examples)
  • Also, every quote should be referenced, including those that are broken up mid-sentence, ergo "See this example"[1] and "also have a look at this example."[2]
  • When it comes to material that discusses a specific action, quote, event, etc. multiple sources may be necessary to verify the information, evne if the primary source is a respected journalistic entity like the New York Times (see Eliot Spitzer ex. 1). In some college papers I pretty much had to cite every sentence that I didn't come up with on my own, so many of my articles on Wikipedia end up having every sentence cited.
  • Finally, I try to cite anything that could be construed as controversial, even if it is completely NPOV, from at least two reliable sources (see Eliot Spitzer ex. 2).
I hope that was of some assistance to you. Let me know if you see anything that is missing from any of those articles, if a specific citation requires clarification, or if they are missing a citation! MrPrada 08:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
One other thing, just a point of information--even when you think you've cited an article to death, it may not be enough. Even statements that are common knowledge, that are contained in the same sources you've already mentioned, may need to be cited. For an example, take a look at Hugh Ewing's talk page. A GA reviewer contested the statement according to the report of General Burnside, "by a brilliant change of front he saved the left from being completely driven in.", even though that can be found in several of the sources I used, along with a standard google-search on Ewing. In other words, like I stated above, sometimes every sentence has to be cited, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter (and as far as I know, that reader was very familiar with the subject matter). It will also help prevent edit wars, if you provide 3 or 4 airtight references for anything that is potentially controversial or murky in nature. MrPrada 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your incredibly helpful points on how and what to cite. Every other author I've come across has basically told me to read Wikipedia's policies on noteable and verifiable source, and just told me to follow those, they didn't explain it or help me to understand it, just kept telling me to read it. However, your points have made it very clear to me as to what must be done (and when). GBenemy (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your very helpful points, and for helping me out, even though I tagged your article without properly looking into it. You're an asset to Wikipedia! GBenemy (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Image tagging for Image:Rth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Nancy Elliott

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Nancy Elliott, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}.

what I suggest the article needs most are some references to newspaper articles about her work -- and the controversy--if you put them in, it would be reasonable to remove the tag--explaining on t he talk page, but someone else may still send it to AfD. DGG (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

George H. Winner Jr.

Hi MrPrada. You are off to such a great start on the article George H. Winner Jr. that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yorkstown town supervisors

The Editor's Barnstar
For having the courage to change your mind. --ROGER TALK 00:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Spitzer

Thanks for not deleting my addition to the Eliot Spitzer article (see below). I think it part of a larger story that is well worth telling. --Irishkevin 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I grew up in Yorktown (lived there for 27 years).

On July 27, 2007, as the Police Surveillance Controversy issue (cited below) continued to unfold, Newsweek reporter Charles Gasparino alleged that a member of Spitzer's staff, Darren Dopp, had threatened him following Gasparino's reporting of Spitzer's uneven handling of those involved in the Grasso excesses.[7] In particular, Gasparino's reporting had noted that Spitzer hadn't pursued H. Carl McCall (a Spitzer political supporter) - who, as the compensation-committee chief, guided the board when it had allegedly grossly overpaid Grasso.[7]

Major kudos for John Watts de Peyster additions!

Major kudos for all you've added! I thought he was just a footnote (I originated the article just as a drill down on the boot monument). Wikipedia's knack for connecting dots and enlightening never ceases to amaze. I thought I wrote a "throw away" article. Thanks again!!! Americasroof 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On August 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Watts de Peyster, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done again MrPrada. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

John Watts de Peyster

Hi Hlj,

With regard to de Peyster, I believe he belongs in the Sickles and Thomas articles for a few reasons.

With regard to Sickles, he was one of his good friends, and wrote extensively on the III Corps and their contributions at Gettysburg. Most modern historians cite de Peyster's "Gettysburg and After", or books derived from this work, when writing about Sickles' contributions to the battle. I think it's notable to point out their friendship, since that may have colored his accounts of Sickles' actions [for better or worse].

As for Thomas, I can only refer you to Thomas's own words, in Van Horne's Life of G.H. Thomas, page 422: "you must permit me to acknowledge my grateful sense of your kind appreciation of my services", and then goes on to tell de Peyster to stop flaunting his name for President(I think, further example of de Peyster's admiration). If you could help me think of a way for me to be more specific and relevant, I'd appreciate it!

Thanks again. MrPrada 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In the case of an obscure guy like this, you need to go to some extra effort to explain references to him in other articles. Saying that he was a friend of Sickles and just linking to his name is pretty meaningless, for instance. After all, Sickles had a lot of friends and we don't list them. If you think that his book had a significant effect on Sickles's legacy, that should be explained. I don't agree with that interpretation -- I checked a handful of my best recent Gettysburg books and found him only in Coddington's 1960 campaign book -- but that's my POV. As to Thomas, you should offer some evidence that his 1875 pamphlet had any effect on his legacy. Otherwise, our bios of generals will have lists of authors who had good things to say about them, without context, and that isn't useful. It's certainly OK to put that sort of info into Peyster's article. Hal Jespersen 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

re: de Peyster

Hal, on the subject of de Peyster and Sickles, I just wanted to point out AN ANALYSIS OF THE BUFORD MANUSCRIPTS by Eric Wittenburg, which states that DePeyster was a close friend and confidant of General Sickles, and was actively involved in "alumni" activity of the Third Corps. An organization called the Third Army Corps Union was formed as a beneficial society for the wives and children of veterans of the Third Corps, and DePeyster helped write its history. (47. William Shreve, The Story of the Third Army Corps Union (Boston: privately published, 1910). de Peyster also wrote at length on Mott, French, Kearny (his cousin) and Humphreys, all of III Corps Fame.

My POV is more from a 19th century perspective. Current authors cite early 20th century authors who cite back to contemporary pieces during or after the war, and this includes de Peyster who was widely regarded as one of the best historians and the foremost military critic of the time.

From what I read, I believe that he did not only have a significant effect on Sickles' legacy, he basically created it, at least the written part, and that is taking into consideration Sickles' endless self-promotion. (though I may be wrong). When I have more sources I will expand the de Peyster piece further and see if that can somehow be worked into the Sickles bio.

However I do feel that his contributions to the legacy of Buford, Thomas, and Sickles is as of now overlooked. Thanks for the feedback! Let me know your thoughts. I'm only an amateur civil war buff blessed with a priceless library of rare books, so I try my best. MrPrada 09:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Hal, one other thing, just as an example of the volumnious contributions of de Peyster to Sickles legacy, see also:
  • Gettysburg: The Meade-Sickles Controversy by Richard Allen Saunders pp. 67-68, 110, 132, 1962 and 202
  • The Third Day at Gettysburg & Beyond by Gary W. Gallagher
  • de Peyster's biography of Mott in Major-General Gershom Mott U.S.V.], The United Service Magazine, Hammersly Co.: Harvard, 1885
  • John Bigelow's The Campaign of Chancellorsville, p 194, 241, 249, 276
  • General Grant's Resting Place, which describes the proximity of de Peyster and Sickles (They were basically neighbors in NYC)
  • Also some de Peyster works at the Cornell Library, which include obituaries of Heintzelman, Hooker, "The Third Corps and Sickles at Gettysburg" (1886), "The last days of the old Third Corps (as we understand it) with the Army of the Potomac, Before and After Gettysburg) with N.H. Loring
  • Plus his History of the Third Corps, Army of the Potomac which include articles in The Citizen, the Citizen and Round Table, Foley's Volunteer, Soldiers and Sailors' Half-Dime Tales of the Late Rebellion, and others, including articles such as "III Corps at Gettysburg: General Sickles Vindicated", and were bound into six volumes by a Professor John Draper--de Peyster was given an "exquisite badge set with jewels, a ruby representing the first, a diamond the second, and a sapphire the third division" for completing this one. Not just an author good things to say about him in my POV. Thanks again, look forward to your feedback. MrPrada 09:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have lost focus on this thread and if you were expecting me to reply, apologies for delaying. My point boils down to the fact that you have to provide appropriate context for obscure characters. He may have been well known in the 19th century, but he is virtually unknown today. For example, you can get away with a statement such as "He was a close friend of Winston Churchill," but you need to expand something like "He was a close friend of Ralph Churchill, a noted 19th-century military historian who, in his 1895 work, Sickles the Magnificent, did much to rehabilitate Sickles's damaged military reputation." In other words, for an obscure person, merely a link is insufficient. (I like to be a cooperative editor on Wikipedia and I will often make edits of this type myself, but in this case I had no idea who this guy was.) Hal Jespersen 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for helping contribute to the Did you know project. Two things. If you move something to the "Next Update" subpage from the "Suggestions" page, please remember to remove the items from the suggestions page. Also, when you add something to the "Next Update" page, remember to add the article name and the nominator (and article creator if they are different) to the "Credits" section. -Andrew c [talk] 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

My bad. Replied on my talk page. Q T C 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peer Reviews

I'll try to get to it once I have a bit of time; I try to comment on every peer review if I get the chance.

As for repeated citations, that's not a problem, in my experience; but note that you can, for example, use the one-footnote-per-paragraph style, which will reduce the level of repetition. Kirill 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OOB

I did the two original ACW OOBs: Gettysburg Union order of battle and Gettysburg Confederate order of battle. It was a lot of work to format them, but others have created quite a few OOBs for other battles using the same format, so you might consider it. I am unfamiliar with the reference work that you are citing, so do not know the answer to this question: Since these organizations changed very frequently, from battle to battle, how can you display a single unit order of battle for the entire war? Hal Jespersen 01:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually quite interesting. Its actually less of an order of battle, and more of the details of the chain of command for every corps in the Army. For instance, take an easy Corps (XXI). It shows when each of the 3 divisions were created, and the data on all of the brigades (3 brigades per division). They were all created at the same time, and eliminated at the same time. I could take some digital photos and email them to you if you'd like, to see if it'd be a worthwhile project. It's helped me to understand changes such as the I Corps from Chancellorsville to Gettysburg when a lot of enlisments expired, or the complicated split of the "Wings" of XVI Corps (while it simultaneously participated in the Arkansas expedition). MrPrada 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, it would not be showing each individual regiment in and out of the brigades, that would months to put up. It only lists the regiment that brigade commanders came from. MrPrada 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the interest of saving some of my time for other pursuits, I have abandoned work on unit history articles and OOBs (leaving mostly bios and battles/campaigns). So my contribution here will be limited to pointing you to the links above. But good luck with the project. I still have a big to-do list of my own. Hal Jespersen 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky in the American Civil War

Thanks for your suggestions for improving Kentucky in the American Civil War. I started doing some work on it as an outgrowth of my work on Confederate government of Kentucky. Truthfully, I don't know much about the subject, and most of my edits are based on a single book: The Civil War in Kentucky by Lowell H. Harrison. If I ever get back around to this article, your notes will give me some direction. I had hoped it would one day become FA, but the comments by User:North Shoreman during the pre-restart FA nom of Confederate government of Kentucky have convinced me that I don't know enough to placate the Civil War buffs out there. :( Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "you guys" as applied to WP:Kentucky pretty much means myself and User:HiB2Bornot2B at present. Most of Kentucky's best editors live at WP:Louisville, a descendant project. However, I can try to solicit some help from them once I finish giving it the once-over. I'll help any way I can; that's a major article for WP:Kentucky. And I know what you mean about obscure biographies. My only FA to this point is William Goebel, governor of Kentucky in 1900 and the only U.S. governor to ever be assassinated. My GAs include several nearly obscure governors of Kentucky (including the two Confederate ones). About the only notable biography I've worked on is Happy Chandler, twice governor of Kentucky and Commissioner of Major League Baseball during integration. I've been begging WP:Baseball to help me take that one to FA, but no luck. Let me know what I can do to help with Kentucky in the ACW. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it my best shot. The 1864-65 period is where some of my sources (or my interest) kind of petered out. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

William Cooley

Wow! Thanks a million :-)--Legionarius 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Johnston de Peyster

Updated DYK query On 5 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Johnston de Peyster, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 04:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Ny19cd.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ny19cd.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK - Andrew Saul

Updated DYK query On 10 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Saul, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Circeus 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Lee

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. T Rex | talk 09:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Naugle

Hi! Thanks for your review. I left some comments in the article's talk page and would appreciated if you comment back. btw, thanks for your nice comments on William Cooley! Do you think it is ready for FA? Unfortunately, the peer review of articles is not very effective, since very few editors care about them (specially about lesser known subjects), and FACs and GACs end up taking their place.--Legionarius 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas disambig

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you reverted my edits. I'm willing to leave it as it is.Athene cunicularia 13:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar! It is nice to be recognized. I haven't actually been following you around -- I have had a number of my own disamibiguation projects on the go relating to political subjects, including Congress > Unites States Congress, Senate > United States Senate, Republican Party > Republican Party (United States), and so on. I expect that's why our paths keep crossing. Thanks again, and keep up the great work. Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem with image caption

Its fixed now, keep up the good work, the article is very close to FA I think. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ives Article

Hi and thanks for the note. I reviewed the article briefly and it does need work. The works list alone is not fully representative and many of the most significant works do not link to articles (the second quartet for example).

I will look at the article again and attempt to revise it some. It does have potential.Canticle 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Date linking

Here's how I understand the general approach to date linking, although I note that not all editors agree with this. I think this makes some sense, though.

  1. In the date "January 15, 2007", "January 15" should be linked so that user preferences are enabled. That means that "January 15" will appear as "15 January" for users who prefer that format.
  2. It is your choice whether to link the "2007" in the above. It doesn't affect user preferences, so there is no need, but most people seem to do it.
  3. Every instance of "January 15" should be linked, not just the first. Again, this is for user preference purposes.
  4. "Date bits", or incomplete dates, e.g., "March", "2003", "Tuesday", and "September 1999", should not be linked. These are "low value" links. It is unlikely that someone reading about a minor event will want to link through to the year in which it happened, or find out more information about the month of March or about Tuesdays. These links just add clutter.
  5. The Style Guide says, however, "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function."

Again, not everyone agrees with this. I think it is a sensible guide, though. Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Andrew Saul FA nomination

Thanks for your message on my talk page.

The one indisputable fact is that virtually all the content on that page has come from you. I said "95%" in my FA comment. It might be 100%. I have seldom seen a serious article of that length, where virtually all of the content came from one editor. At the very least, I have to conclude two things. The first is that Andrew Saul has not attracted significant interest from other Wikipedia editors. The other is that you have an unusually strong interest in this topic.

On top of that, you have put this article into eleven WikiProjects—Abraham Lincoln is only in six. You rated him him "High" or "Top" importance in most cases. Typically, a high-importance or top-importance topic attracts a lot of different editors, but you are editing this article practically by yourself.

Your vigorous, I would almost say argumentative, defense of the FA nomination is also somewhat unusual. This article has become a personal crusade for you. I would guess that you are a friend, colleague, family member, donor, campaign worker, or groupie of Andrew Saul. As such, your objectivity is in question. If other editors were working on this article, their vigilance would be a check against bias or POV-pushing. But because no editors except you are making substantive contributions, no such checks are in place.

It is true that quite a few of my edits are on the subject of Gilbert & Sullivan, although I have probably an equal number of edits on New York City Subway pages. You will find, however, that the pages I've worked on have been very heavily edited by many other people. Those other editors are there as a check against any bias I may introduce. I have also not nominated any page for FA status, for which higher standards apply.

I don't honestly have the energy to do my own research project on Andrew Saul. I have great confidence that, if he truly is as important as you say, other editors will add to the page, and smooth out the effects of any bias you may have. The lack of other editors participating suggests that he quite simply isn't the major figure you believe him to be, and thus, probably shouldn't be a featured article on Wikipedia. Marc Shepherd 03:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Saul

Regarding the above users comment: "he quite simply isn't the major figure you believe him to be, and thus, probably shouldn't be a featured article on Wikipedia" That type of comment made by that user is definitely a case of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions specially [[WP:ILIKEIT#Nobody_is_working_on_it]]
An excellent work you are doing on this article, keep on keeping on until you get it FA. Thanks---Trade2tradewell 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Naugle

Hi Mrprada, sorry for the bother, but I am reposting the message below because I did not get your feedback (good, bad or "I won't review this article any further"). Thanks!--Legionarius 15:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your review. I left some comments in the article's talk page and would appreciated if you comment back. btw, thanks for your nice comments on William Cooley! Do you think it is ready for FA? Unfortunately, the peer review of articles is not very effective, since very few editors care about them (specially about lesser known subjects), and FACs and GACs end up taking their place.--Legionarius 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Legionarius 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Hello MrPrada. Thanks for your support at the Military history taskforce elections. I am now a coordinator. Please feel free to approach me if you need any help. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


WPMILHIST Elections

Thank you for your support. It was much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello MrPrada. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 03:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Hello, MrPrada. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

  1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
  2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical Help, Lplease

Whenever I try to log on to wikipedia from home, Internet Explorer freezes. This is the only website I experience this problem with. The Task manager appears as though I am always using around 81k of memory. Any ideas? MrPrada 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim Naugle

Help! :-)--Legionarius 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Created Edward N. Kirk

I just noticed you had this Civil War general on your To Do list. I had created this article today, and found your link when checking the "What links here" feature. Please feel free to add anything to the bio I wrote. 8th Ohio Volunteers 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD inactivity notification

You have been declared inactive at USRD. If this is in error, feel free to restore yourself to the list, but only if you are truly active at USRD. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rinfret.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rinfret.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 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) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Little context in Duchess County, NY politicians

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Duchess County, NY politicians, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Duchess County, NY politicians is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Duchess County, NY politicians, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Smith (Disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Donald Smith (Disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Donald Smith. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


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

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) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

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 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My edit to Johnston de Peyster

I apologize for deleteing the Persondata, my intention was to move it down above the delete sort and below the references. If you look at the Persondata page thats where it should go vice at the top above the infobox. I will be more careful, thanks for letting me know and let me know if you notice any more mistakes.--Kumioko (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

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! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Colton-westchester-map.jpg

Your recent upload, Image:Colton-westchester-map.jpg, has been listed as in the public domain, but does not list the image's source. As per WP:IUP, please add the source to the image's description page. Thanks! --24fan24 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP1.0

Hi Mrprada, thanks for passing Kenneth M. Taylor for Version 0.7. Good to see another reviewer around, there have only been 2 or 3 of us lately! I wanted to mention, though, normal procedure is that you nominate the article then have another reviewer look over the article and pass it. For this one, I don't mind being the second person approving the article - although the topic is not highly important, it is notable enough that a GA would make it into the selection. So, I'd like to encourage you to nominate others, possibly as a related group, as well as to review existing nominations. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Formations template

It looks pretty good so far, but I wonder if it mightn't be more readable if some of the repetitive wording were eliminated (e.g. by formatting the links as "Indiana, Illinois, Michigan" rather than "District of Indiana, District of Illinois, District of Michigan"). It's a navigational tool, so as long as the links point to the right place, there's no real need to display the full name of each article, I think. Kirill 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Brackman AfD

Thanks! I hope it is enough to convince others of its notability! BWH76 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK next update reminder

Hi Mprada911, thanks for your updates to Template:Did you know/Next update. When you add articles to the Next Update section, please remember to credit the article's author(s) and nominator. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)