CE, I know you're busy, but what are your thoughts on the merged article Harmar Campaign? I haven't gotten any feedback on it since I put it together in September. I like to wrap that merger up, but I'd really like to read another opinion before I do anything. Thanks.Mingusboodle (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the valued input. I'll wait a few more days to see if anyone else responds, but I think they're destined to be merged. If anyone finds missing/contradictory information, they can always open the redirect page and view old edits. Mingusboodle (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northwest Territory task force?
Would you be interested in forming a task force for the Northwest Territory? I've never started one, but I thought we could form up under Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History. The reason I'm considering it is that many of the articles dealing with the NW Territory (or the daughter territories) are dealt with as individual state histories, and I think we could do better if we instead focused on the enormous Indian territory that the new United States inherited after the Revolution. Let me know what you think.Mingusboodle (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea! I would be willing to participate in that. Right now I am super busy "in real life", but I will be freed up again my March to have lots of time to contribute. There are lots of articles that would cover that we have worked on already, and it would be good to group them somehow. We would just need to start a discussion on the Us History project talk page and see if they will let us. I don't see why they wouldn't. The scope would be pretty broad. About 1500-1850 in history, we could cover all the daughter territories too, (I have been working on Indiana Territory lately) also all the native american tribes in the area, all the military conflicts, and event articles of the period. There would probably be at least a couple hundred topics already made to support, people from the period that lived there, plus what we could add. That would be something good for me to expand too, I am running out of Indiana history topics. lol Charles Edward (Talk) 01:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. What has Me done to get in trouble this time, or he just your latest victim? He has had a couple disagreements with WP:WPIN project members on a couple different articles in the last couple monthes. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be a stickler.. but does it really hurt anything for him to put an admin tag on his page. We all know he is not an admin. (I know new people probably wouldn't) And being and admin is.. not a big deal (or thats what they want to us to believe). It's not like he has secret admin powers and is hurting people. If it was a content dispute I'd get involved, but seems to me that its a bit unfair. He is a good contribute to our project and other areas, and now he is blocked for something silly. Charles Edward (Talk) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try getting History of slavery in Indiana to FA. I know you are busy, so I'm not expecting you to really do anything, but if you could add the refs to the paragraphs without them it would help, as you were probably the one who put them there to begin with, and therefore what the cite is. Thanks.--King Bedford ISeek his grace02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bedford! Yeah, I am super busy for the next couple monthes, but I should have some free time this weekend. I wrote almost all my stuff out of Indiana: A Redemption from Slavery, and Indiana and Indianans volume 1. Both by Jacob Piatt Dunn. Since then I have come across some other good stuff, and been the the Carnegie Center in New Albany and took pictures in their slavery exhibit. So there is plenty more that could be added now, especially in the underground railraod section. If I don't do it tomorrow evening, I will try to get it on Saturday. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and added a few, and did a bit of copy edit. I bet they will not pass the FA because the sources used are "old". Indiana History:A Book of readings, (Ralph Gray), and there is one by Levering, cant remeber the title, both have a good bit of info on the slavery in indiana. They are both fairly new. If i can get more time i will pull them out, and try to suplement some of the refs to dunn with refs to those books. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting more into the 1812 topics, which are fascinating, and I'm toying with the idea of creating an article: Indiana Territory in the War of 1812, similar to the Indiana in the American Civil War article. I need help making up my mind. The theatre of the war didn't seem to respect any state/territorial lines, and perhaps we're better off just using the Category:Indiana in the War of 1812. A separate article would only be useful if it could help the Indiana Territory or History of Indiana articles, both of which already have War of 1812 sections in them. Not sure... too tired. Let me know what you think, and I'll revisit this after I've slept. Mingusboodle (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. I have a book called Union 1812. It has a whole chapter about William Henry Harrison and his war exploits in Indiana and Canada. And Mingusboodle has alot of stuff he has put in other articles, so I bet he has some sources. The territorial borders it 1812 were almost identical to the borders of the state, the northern border was moved north a few miles in 1816. We can always rename it if need be. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana History Template
Do you know why Template:Indiana history is expanded by default in some articles and hidden in others? I think the hidden view looks much nicer, especially in articles that already have a lot of miscellania at the bottom, but I don't know how to change it. Mingusboodle (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why it does that to be honest. I think it is done automatically based on the size of the article. For example, if an article does not fill up your screen when I open it, the table is expanded. It the article is lenghty, and fills the screen, then it is not open for me. I am not sure if that is just coincidence, or what. Its just an observation. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was there in the fall and took photos of the memorial. They are all on the commons. There is also some I did not upload. I will see what I can dig up. Charles Edward (Talk)
And! I have a chapter in one of my history books about his life in Indiana and the homestead. There is bound to be some good stuff in there. We could probably put a section about Lincolns life in Indiana, that would be appropriate I think. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fooled with it a little. I probably have enough when I get home to expand it 2 or 3x. 5x might be hard to pull off though, but I bet we can do it. I will have my books to look at in a couple hours and give it another go. Charles Edward (Talk) 22:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good! Is it just text that counts? I am about out of stuff to add. I will need to research more to find other stuff. My park brochure is somewhere, but I can't find it.. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I have been meaning to get around and work that up to FAC, but I have been too busy, I got it to GA earlier last year. I still have alot of my source books laying around if you need anything. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison
See comment on my talk. Plus, we need better sources for "Harrison's only act of consequence as president was to call Congress into a special session, which he set to begin on May 31, 1841. He and Whig leader Henry Clay had disagreed over the necessity of the special session,[46] but Clay's powerful position in both the legislature and the Whig Party quickly forced Harrison to give in. He thus proclaimed the special session in the interests of "the condition of the revenue and finance of the country."[47]" — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have access to my library later this evening and will endeavor to take care of this and some of the other things. I am sure I have multiple sources for this. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I have a big favor to ask. Could you add Captain Logan to your watchlist? It's only a stub, but it has some relevance to our regional history. Some user(s) added a lot of information recently, but it was simply poor editing, and I finally decided to simply revert all their additions. I'm going to try to put some of it back, but I could use another set of eyes on the article to make sure new editors have some standards. Thanks. Mingusboodle (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve at least, but those are just the ones I put on my user page. There might be one or two more, I just don't recall honestly. Too much water under the bridge, haha! Benjamin Harrison is the only FA I contributed alot too, but someone else nominated and got it through. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I was thinking in the summer I might try to be a guide for the DNR there. I want to give old capital tours, I think that would be tons of fun. It would let me get some great photos for free too. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison
Can you work on the remaining issues in this FAC? Most are from Sarcasticidealist or Buddingjounalist. These are more up you alley than mine. I'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get those tommorrow afternoon. I think maybe if we bust up the last paragraph of the family section and move it to where it belongs chronologically in the article that would help. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on that set of edits you just did. Did it cover Buddingjournalist's last concern? I'm starting to have trouble following all this ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should have. The only thing I don't think I have addressed is him wanting more informatin about why harrison did what he did, his goals, etc. I don't know where to find anything but specululation on that. Charles Edward (Talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Napoleon
thanks for encouragement, it's very important. i've responded at peer review, i think Fouché executions were mainly in his role in Lyon in 1793-4 i.e. predating Napoleon. he was involved in dealing with plotters during the rule of Napoleon but not on the same scale as Lyon. unless you know of particular details/towns? Tom B (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Charles Edward/archive3's Day!
User:Charles Edward/archive3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Charles Edward/archive3's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Charles Edward/archive3!
That's nonsense (your stating that a lawsuit could come from the word "jew"). And it wasn't the word "jew" - it had a question mark after it, as in "jew?". You ignore the obvious. And, yes, you still appear touchy about it given that lawsuits are not a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.128.37 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison update
There are still two prose opposes. Best thing to do is ping those two people and ask them to update. I'd also put a note on the FAC that you asked them and feel you've addressed their concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that. I don't think they will change their minds though. I think Kevin Myers has a different idea about Harrison and Tecumseh and wants that section expanded more. From interacting with Sarcasticidealist in the past, I think just likes to oppose. The only way he will be happy is to copy edit himself probably. Buddingjournalist might be swayed to a support though. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Battle of Tippecanoe you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe for things needed to be addressed. Anaxial (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re:bot
Hello, Charles Edward. You have new messages at WP:BOTR. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
17:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Corydon
Hi,
I chose Battle of Corydon to review for GAN. I am new to American Military History though not to the military profession. Also, since I have poor internet connectivity and a full workload, I'll be slower than most people. Looking forward to a good experience reviewing.
Offtopic, being a Hoosier, since you like adding history sections to wikis, may I suggest adding one to Indiana? While reading up the Indiana wiki for placing Indiana in my geographical/historical/mental perspective, I needed to know about Indiana's early history and its response to the Civil War, but could not get anything.
Thanks, these links helped. Since this is the case, you wont have to do very much to add a history section to Indiana with 'main' template pointing to some of these links. Something akin to a lead. Alternatively, the essence of these articles with wikilinks cleverly inserted in the prose will do the needful. This is just a suggestion, no connection to GA Review. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. There used to be a history section there.. I wonder were it went? I am going to go back in the article history and restore it. Probably a vandal. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nominations
Hi Charles Edward, thank you for contributing to DYK! I just wanted to let you know, when using the nomination template, you should type your username (without User: or [[ ]]) in the |author= line, rather than putting in your full signature ~~~~. Thus, rather than
{{subst:NewDYKnom| ..... author=~~~~ ...}}
you should use
{{subst:NewDYKnom| ..... author=Charles Edward ...}}
No worries! One my long-term goals is to improve the code so that it can recognize when someone has entered a signature for that field, and display it correctly (since right now the template only expects regular usernames written without any markup, and can't handle things other than that) so that the template will work no matter how it is used. I don't think I know how to pull that off yet, though. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are in the area
It might be interesting to dig up any local info on the Reverend Peter Glenn, an abolitionist Lutheran preacher who was first casualty of the Battle of Corydon. There are several conflicting reports. One has hundreds of local militia 4 miles south at the Glenn farm confronting advance scouts. It may not be notable enough for wikipedia, but it surely would find a home at genealogy.wikia.com. I tend to believe the account by Doctor Dean, here, who told a plausible story of a father that shot at the rebels because he thought his son had been injured by the soldiers. Hard to prove anything at this point.-J JMesserly (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an FA, congrats. You can certainly share credit for this as a major contributor as I could not have done it without you! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Guidance Barnstar For all your work on bringing William Henry Harrison, a very important article to the history of the US Presidency, through a FAC, I hearby award you, Charles Edward, this Barnstar. Thanks for all you do here. Congratulations!
5 generations ago, my family had some branches in Indiana. Some were frontier type folks and pressed on going west. Others put down roots. Thanks for your attention to the subject. It will be interesting to see real depth to local histories feeding in to wikipedia. This is part of a recent trend towards microhistory, that may or may not produce greater volumes of local histories in wikipedia. Some may be judged to be insufficiently notable, but in a way they give in microcosm a picture of what was happening at a macro level. Take Peter Glenn for example. He sounds like he was a borderline abolitionist. Rebel soldiers show up at his farm foraging for food taking whatever they lay their hands on. He gets killed defending his property. So this illustrates the view of the Morgan's men as just a bunch of outlaws stealing things. The depth of feeling is illustrated by Doctor Dean's grotesque treatment of the body of the confederate soldier killed. Yet their were suspicions that Glenn was killed after been identified by copperheads due to his views. Probably not possible due to the speed of the events but it is an indication of the discord in Indiana that the suspicions were there. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message on my Talk page. I think it would be very difficult to provide an authorative article on the "Doctrines of William Branham" because there are so many different views among his followers (of whom I am one!). I think WB's most controversial doctrines among other churches are probably the Trinity, serpent seed, and the role of women. A general overview of these and other subjects would be good. Weaver's book is not without its own bias ("Branham was a victim of his own illusions", 2000,p173) and errors ("He believed that the final manifestation of his gift would transform physical bodies into the glorified ones necessary for the rapture", 2000, p173). Some of Weaver's conclusions can be easily disproved by reference to the over 1,000 audio sermons and transcripts online. It is also worth noting that WB had more in common with the evangelical and pentecostal churches than is often realized because the focus is usually only on differences. Rev107 (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is ok. I will add Tecumseh's curse to the see also section. That part is a legend, and was noted as such, but it is a popular and well known legend which is why I considered worthy of inclusion. But I guess it could be undue weight. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Battle of Tippecanoe, an article I recently placed for an A class review was supported by three editors to receive A class status. I am not a member of MilHist and unfamiliar with the the procedure - can I now give the article a MilHist A class rating, or is there a formal process for this that will occur? Any help would be appreciated. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Edward, And I think it's a damn fine article, too. You've done a really commendable job! And I know that commendations are not that forthcoming. So keep up the good work.7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Thank you for nominating the Buckner article for a DYK. I have modified the article to clarify Buckner's diplomatic status. He was, in fact, the first African American to be chief of a United States diplomatic mission. At the time of his appointment, the mission in Monrovia was technically a legation, a step below an embassy. After World War II, the United States upgraded all of its legations to embassy status. As "minister resident" in Liberia, Buckner was for all practical purposes an ambassador. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, did I goof up! Buckner evidently was not the first African American to head a U.S. diplomatic mission. (See discussion on the Buckner article's discussion page.) My sincere apologies for the error! I've corrected the article accordingly. -- Cuppysfriend (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that you decided that a section was too much for the following: The Great Lakes Circle Tour is a designated scenic road system connecting all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.Great Lakes Circle I am not necessarily disagreeing with that. However, you might have considered simply deleting the separate section and not the content. I know it's easiest to click "undo", but sometimes that's not the most constructive path. Think about it. Happy editing. Best regards. Stan
The content is notable for its own article, but I don't think it really has a place in the Indiana article or the Lake Michigan article. :) You are welcome to re-add it, but I suspect that another editor will probably do the same thing. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Elwood Haynes
On April 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elwood Haynes, 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.
On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel M. Ralston, 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.
Charles, hope I'm doing this right. I had no idea all this nice structure existed, when I happened to make my little addition to the entry for the Seymour, Indiana article. I have lots more information regarding Seymour and some of the more prolific personalities there. I hope to author an article on the Ahlbrand Carriage Company someday, instead of just referring to the external link. Please let me know if there is something specific I can do to help.
Jeff.mcginley.indy (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am reviewing your article Eli Lilly for GA and have left a few comments at Talk:Eli Lilly/GA1. I copy edited the article. I hope you don't mind; it's just easier for me to do that then to give you a long list of grammatical and other concerns. Feel free to change anything where I erred. I enjoyed the article very much and think you did an excellent job. It may need a few more references for some of the large claims. Otherwise, it is well written and interesting. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or concerns. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, this is Bedford, using the Jeff Township library. Dunno if I'll get net access at home in a matter of minutes or days, but I thought I should let you know I am trying again to get IN ACW as a FAC, although I think you've noticed by now. Toodles.--74.138.62.17 (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need some help escalating this issue to someone who is not involved. Someone posted a link to AFP a long time ago and it was removed. I just want a link like the other local newspaper. I'm not a link spammer, etc. I do have a lot of photos/videos and more that I can offer up to Public Domain so that Wikipedia can use them. I'm pretty "Wiki-ignorant" though, and could use some help to get this cleared up. I may have been wrong trying to put the link back on my own, but I think it should be there and was upset when it was taken down.
Thanks. As mentioned, I can talk to someone in person about this if you like. (Not sure if you even know who the other person is - the one complaining about me. I have a lot of enemies because of the site, though.
Thank you! It actually came together very nicely - which is unusual, it usually takes me a couple months to turn an article into something nice! Charles Edward (Talk) 02:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
With the promotion of Eli Lilly to FA, I want to thank you for all of your great work in Indiana history-related articles! Without you WP:INDIANA and all of Wikipedia wouldn't be as good. Keep up your excellent effort! Reywas92Talk21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations again! I'm surprised Eli Lilly got up there so quickly, but I'm very glad to see an Indiana article on the Main Page! Reywas92Talk01:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On May 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Levi Coffin, 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.
The following reference you reinstated doesn't anywhere mention Federal regulation of drugs except for instances of specific drugs long after Eli Lilly dies.:
Right, but it does list some of the company's milestones, demonstrating its early innovations. The ref is meant for the first couple sentances, not the FDA part. I have added the page numbers from the book by madison that shows where Lilly's son appeared before Congress in a meeting to advocate the passage of the Pure Food and Drug act, and it says there that he was continueing his fathers advocacy. The other pages also show how Lilly interacted with the FDA earlier version and how several of its first key people where former Lilly employees. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)16:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice! I happy to see WikiProject Indiana get more light on the front page. It amazing to see how much people branch out from one article on the front page and edit related articles. Thanks for you great copy edit work too, I don't think it would have passed without that help. Copy editors are what I think we are most short on! I been keeping an eye on what all is going on. I hope you stick around. :) IMO your work is invaluable. There are not many editors I have come across who are as versatile as you. Cheers! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said that "Its not as if this is the first contentious thing Xeno has done either. Let us not forget his blocking of Dougstech, among other things"[1]. I would appreciate your elucidation on the "among other things" bit. Since the ANI has been closed, perhaps at my administrative review page? Thanks, –xenotalk18:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, after looking up the other two things I was thinking of, I see that was someone else was the driving force in the incidents. I will gladly strike out that portion of my statement. I see the thread closed, I am sorry for not noticing your question before hand. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I am trying to self-reflect here and worried that I'd done more than two potentially stupid things in recent memory. I still welcome any general comments you have at my review page ^^ =) –xenotalk18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be too picky, but didn't the convention convene in 1850? And might not this particular case call for capitalizing "constitutional convention?" -LegalBeagle (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It did convene in December of 1850, but lasted several months into 1851. The constitution they created is known as the constitution of 1851, but was not adopted until 1852. By my logic, the convention would refer to the document they produced, rather than the year they were called. I don't believe the convention had an official name. I was also unsure on the capitalization. Whatever change is made should probably be mirrored in Category:Delegates to the 1816 Indiana constitutional convention. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Charles, THANK YOU for finding that great photo of D.C. Stephenson. I had just about given up trying to find a public domain photo that would be suitable. —Aetheling (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Just thinking too, he was arrested in Indiana, so any mugshot would have been taken by state police, making the photo property of the state. In Indiana, the state waives all copyright restrictions on public owned works. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I wish we had known that earlier. We tried to use his mugshot several years ago, but it was pulled for copyright violation. —Aetheling (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
If you still have it, you can upload it again using this template:
{{pd-because|This image is part of the public records of the state of Indiana. Under Indiana law, it is therefore the intellectual property of the state of Indiana. Indiana public records may be copied without limitation and used for any purpose. ::The State of Indiana retains copyright but has explicitly waived all restrictions on copying any official state property, designs, or works. See Indiana Code 5-14-3 generally.}}.
No problem. It is pretty handy! You can access the Indiana Code on the IN.gov website too, it is pretty much a open and shut case on public records. I don't think certain artwork and other certain things like that is covered in every case though there are a few exceptions noted. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Governor of Indiana
Thanks for finding all the election results for governor! I had looked when I added the recent ones but couldn't find any others. The only thing missing is references for them. What source did you use? That should be included as well (unless it's OurCampaigns, which is unreliable). Reywas92Talk23:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting them out of The Governors of Indiana by Linda Gugin and James St. Clair. I will go through and add page numbers for them. It gives numbers for alot of them, but some it don't give very much details, I have been adding hidden comments to the page with what I have found on the missing ones. I am trying to expand all the Governor's articles up to B class, so far I am up to James D. Williams now. I hope to finish in a week or so. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On May 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isaac P. Gray, 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.
Lol! Micheal Jackson, of course! Some of those are surprising though. That list will very useful. Most of the 500+ daily hits look to be mostly b class or better. It probably wouldn't be alot of work to get the others other 500+ hits that high. I would love to get Indiana up to FA. It is primarily in need of references, copyediting, and a bit of cleanup. I bet we could at least get it past a GA in a couple weeks or so without a ton of work. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)00:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
County resourses
Do you have any resources with historical information about Indiana's counties? I would like to take List of counties in Indiana to FLC, but it needs a little more meat in the lead. It's somewhat basied on List of counties in Alabama. Thanks!! Reywas92Talk 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I've had some problems cross-referencing the dates founded. For many counties, there are different dates on the county article, NACo, and this site. Any suggestions? Thanks, Reywas92Talk21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is [2] which is the Indiana County History Preservation Society website. There is quite a bit of info on there, but I don't find the site very user-friendly, but by clicking the counties you can get formation date and some level of detail about the county. I am not sure if it qualifies as reliable, but I would think it does. I have never found anything ther inaccurate so far. If nothing else, the website does give pretty good sourcing for the info on it, so you could just reference back to it (most of which is also available for viewing on their website) For origins of the county names, I went through last year and put the source for quite a few names with references into their county article history sections. There are still some I am not sure about, and for some, like Floyd County, there is no recorded source of the name, just speculations. The other info, size, population, fips, etc, could all be copied from the county articles. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)21:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into my library and I have a book: Sketchbook of Indiana History, by Arville Funk, 1968, that lists all of the counties, their creation date, county seat, and the origin of its name. I will cross reference the article with the book and make any corrections, and add the source to the article. The book also has a footnote that says there is disagreement about several county creation dates because the territorial record keeping was poor, and until the state library had its own building in 1827 some state records were lost by officials. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Warren T. McCray
On June 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warren T. McCray, 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.
The article Levi Coffin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Levi Coffin for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly new at Wikipedia, and I know History of Hartford City, Indiana and Roll, Indiana are low priority, but I still would like to improve their quality. Any suggestions? TwoScars (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the History of Hartford City, Indiana, you could check out the WP:Manual of Style and get some good pointers on how to fix up the prose, and standardize the format. One thing that it could definantly use is a longer lead. I would suggest expanding it to at least three paragraphs, and maybe four. Check out WP:LEAD for some pointers there. (It would also be good to copy that summary lead to the Hartford City article's history section. Governmental history is always useful too, what date the town was incorporated, what its form of government was at first (mayor, town council?) and then when that changed. Also and city limit changes would be useful. You could also link quite a few terms also, like Little Turtle. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)05:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated History of Hartford City, Indiana. I have noticed an inaccuracy or two on the Blackford County page and Licking Township page. What do I do? Hartford City did NOT get connected to Indianapolis by rail in the 1850s. They were connected to Cincinnati in 1867, Fort Wayne in 1869, and Muncie and Indianapolis in 1870. Hoover Park is park, NOT an extinct town. I have played basketball at Hoover Park. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable correcting someone else's work.TwoScars (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to update or correct anything. In most cases no one will give you any trouble. Especially if you provide a reference when you place the updated material. When something does not have a reference listed in the article (see WP:CITATION), and then you find something in a source that shows it is not correct, you can fix it by correcting it and then putting you source as a reference. If someone challenges it, they will need to have a source to back up what they are saying as well and then you can find a compromise. Source dictate what will go in the article. As far as most of the town and county and township articles go, any improvement you make will be appreciated, as there is so many and so few editors to monitor all of them. And most editors are not familiar enough with each place to be sure what is correct and what is not. For Hoover Park, I think that being extinct might refer the town being incorporated with a government. Maybe it once was and now is not, not that people no longer live there. I do not know personally. But if you do, again feel free to correct it. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting that IP. He is trying to change information in another article he knows is incorrect, and because I reverted him twice, he went about and reverted the two articles you reverted. Thought I'd let you know.--King Bedford ISeek his grace16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
:) You might keep a closer eye on the article right now. People do tend to want to post on historical inaccuracies and POV about a film when it comes out. That really is relevant at the article on the film, not the subject. Historical inaccuracies are really annoying unless someone has bothered to publish an article of some sort about it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I got it on my watchlist now. I got a couple books on Dillinger I am perusing at the moment. I hope to get the time to work the article up really well. It needs a lot more citations, and I feel like it is missing some good information too. I hope* to get at it in the next week or so. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Charles; I created an SVG as the lead image of this article and removed File:MorgansRaidBrandenburgMarke.jpg from the article. It is my fault that I failed to notice that the photo was not uploaded by its creator; such a scenario requires an OTRS (from the original photographer) so that the permission is confirmed. Rather fussing it up at the FAC, I took the bold step of removing it from the article. By the way, there are some Creative Commons licensed photos of Morgan's raid re-enactments on Flickr.[3] There are other photos (paintings, waymark signs, etc) as well, but care have to be taken with them; the painting is most assuredly a copyviolation, and recent waymark signs with large amount of text would likely be copyrighted (if the text is illegible, that is still okay). Jappalang (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, I forgot to tick some boxes in my Flickr search. The re-enactment photos were copyrighted, so you would have to ask the photographers to change the license to one compatible with Wikipedia (WP:FLICKR) if you wish to use them. Sorry. Jappalang (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I drove around last night and got a few pics of Morvin's landing, and a couple markers. If I can find my usb cable I can upload them... It is somewhere.. ! The live reenactment is next week and I will be there, so I can get some reenactment photos of my own. Thanks for removing the image, that was ok with me. I am gonna go try to get a few more images of the battlesite today, maybe one or two might be worthwhile. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isaac Blackford, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Hall of Fame is in Indiana, but yes all of it's contents are probably not within the project scope and some of them should be removed, I intend to go through all the articles in the course of the next week and remove anything that it outside the project scope, and to assess everything. But if think it best to remove the tag from that category quickly I will leave it to your judgement. If you have not already tagged it, then it is ok to exclude it, I can check the category manually for articles. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did initially hit a few players with first names starting with "A", but reverted. If a player is from Indiana or played for/in Indiana they should also be in another Indiana-related category and should get picked up by the net, no? I just think it would be peculiar to go through and tag every Hockey-hall-of-famer with a WikiProject Toronto tag, so I think it's best to not-tag this category. –xenotalk13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eli Lilly is headquartered in Indiana and is the state's largest corporations, a majority of its development and operations also occur in Indiana and a large part of the articles in it's category are within the scope of Indiana, but others will not be. It will take a manual check to assess them individually. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think all their individual drug products would fall under the scope. Would you rather I tag them and let you go through and de-tag or just not tag that category? –xenotalk13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm not going to de-tag the ones that already got hit (any article starting with A thru E), I'll leave that to you to make the call and remove where necessary. The bot keeps halting for whatever reason, but I'll give it a poke every so often. 6800 or so left. By the way, did you know that the same plugin I am using to automatically do all this can also be used to manually assess? You might look into learning to use it. –xenotalk16:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would love to get that article up to B class, he is one of the state's most interesting senators. NPOV is there primarily because I feel the article gives no context to his views and positions. It also does not, as clearly as it could, explain his leaving the Republican Party - which was almost entirely because of his positions. And last, because it does not go into any dicussion at all about the the break up of the state Republican Party, which was caused by the big fight between him, Frank Hanly and Frederick Van Nuys. I feel that without having that information in the article, but then including information that only shows one side of it (his quote, without context), it gives a slanted view of Beveridge. There is a great book on him [4], plus he is the author of several book himself, which also in not discussed but does not really affect the nuetrality of the article. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he seems like quite a character. I only stumbled across the page by accident. Let me know if you get round to writing him up properly, I'd like to read it :) Flowerparty☀14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You gave this article a "C" rating. Please identify on the article's talk page the things you feel should be cleaned up or improved to gain a higher rating. Thanks. Edison (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Rufus Wainwright edit
Hi there! I am glad to see an audio sample on the Rufus Wainwright article, but I have to mention that the caption is incorrect. Wainwright sang "Banks of the Wabash" on the soundtrack to The Myth of Fingerprints (1997), not the EP Waiting for a Want. Also, should the text above the audio button read Rufus Wainwright - "Banks of the Wabash" instead of Paul Dresser "On the Banks of the Wabash" (1897) to properly display that Wainwright is the singer in the audio clip? --Another Believer(Talk)04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! I will correct it. This is the first audio sample I uploaded.. I wasn't sure if I did it right, and couldn't find any forum that looked appropriate for asking for assistance. I was a bit confused about the album (I downloaded it originally from i-tunes) and couldn't remeber which of the two it was - when I looked it up, it was showing up under both albums, so I took a guess. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be more accurate in French history than the French themselves?
I am sorry if I reverted you edit without an explanation. The reason I did so was because that article had gone through several quality reviews, and the dates of the reign had never been questioned. It is very common for vandals to change vital statics on random articles, like changing population figures, birthdays, etc, and not leave any explanation when they do so. However I now see you are not a vandal. :) In the future, it is best to use your edit summary box and the article talk page to discuss or explain changes you make. When I see a change like this made this, especially when what is entered in the infobox differs with what is in the text, but the text is not changed, I typically revert the edits. The problem is.. The currently referenced date in the article places his coronation on 2 December 1804. I have also referred to Napoleon: A Life, by Alan Schom which also agree with that date of coronation. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock please
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Well..... I guess I should do something else... but what? I seem to remember a couple years ago.. before wiki.. I used to do other things.. if only I can recall what I used to do. Perhaps I could do it now —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On August 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matthew E. Welsh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just a note that I should be getting around to this GAC on Wednesday afternoon - I'm out of town until then, my apologies. Excellent article in general, just a few niggles. Nice to see someone else writing law content :). Ironholds (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your GA review of Bill Bradley. I think 90% of what you noted is stuff I would like to have changed but I was hoping someone else would have come along while I was working on it. I also wondered about the two images (a thing I should know more about) and I thought they were unsuitable...I guess I was right. There are one or two things I might disagree on but we can discuss that later if need be. I'll be working on it this weekend; thanks again for the review. I'll get back to you. Frank | talk 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And, it looks like I've managed to get most of the items done. The lede may well generate more comments; that's a bunch of "new" content, so I'll continue watching the talk page for any additional comments you may have. Frank | talk 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great.! Would you mind if I edited your list to remove a few categories first? I made a note at the project, and a couple users are working away at the unassessed articles with me. We have about a third of them went through now. I keep bumping into other things to do so it is taking me a bit longer than I intended. AWB certainly is speeding things up though!
When you are in assessment mode, and you are assessing a page, it gives you a pop up box where you enter the quality and importance rating, it also gives you a spot to mark for maintenance too, like "needs attention" and "needs infobox". Well all the maintenance parameters work, except "needs photo". I made the removal of a few categories. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, you could always add an alias for the parameter. Can you give me an example of a page where you put it but it's not working?
I'm almost done tagging the net-new pages. Based on your comments and a review of your AWB work, it looks like you guys are already combing the "unassessed" category and doing stuff over-and-above just tagging as "stub", so would you prefer I left it? Or should I go ahead with auto-tagging as stub the 797 articles I identified? –xenotalk14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to go ahead and tag the stub articles. They will eventually get manually reviewed at some point. But just for the sake having a temporary measure in place until they are reviewed manually, it would be worth it in my opinion.
Again in regards to the image paremeter. I just assessed Hondorus, Indiana. For the class options I choose stub, for the importance\priority, I choose low. Under settings where you can also mark for maintenance, I checked needs infobox and photo requested, but no no photo requested paramenter was added. Again, its not really a big deal. For the most part there are about four of us who ever go out and take pictures, and we buzz each other if we have requests. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plugin isn't co-operating me right now for manual assess to see what you're talking about... Anyhow unfortunately the person who created it doesn't really maintain it anymore nor do the AWB devs that often... Gotta find a pioneering VB programmer who can pimp it out for us. I'll get to those assessments. –xenotalk15:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft provides a free compiler I think. You should check out the code for the kingbot plugin and see if you can fix it up. See also all the suggestions I left at WT:Plugin++ =).
Announcing new & improved Mk V auto-assessement. Are you interested in giving it a shot?
There was also a suggestion to clean up the unknown importance; do you think you could break up WP:WikiProject Indiana/Categories into a default lowest importance (low/med/high) ? (Leaving anything that's too complicated in an "do not tag" at the bottom)
Hello. I should be able to give that a shot tommorrow using the new pluggin. For default importance on cats, I should probably try to get input from the rest of the project on that. I will do that tommorrow too. But tht shouldn't be too hard. Most cats would all be low importance. My French in-laws re visiting today. :) 13:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)~
Sure, take your time. Xenobot just completed a task for WikiProject Chicago. See here for an idea of the edits it was making. I can make it more strict, i.e., only tag if two other projects agree. Let me know.
What is the copyright status for images owned/taken by the Government of Indiana? I think you've dealt with some images like this, but is there anything in writing on IN.gov? Specifically, I want to know what to use for the licensing for the map images here. Although provided by the Star, they say the source is the Secretary of State's office. Thanks! Reywas92Talk21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends techinically on whether or not the image is "part of the public records" of the state. You can check out Indiana Code 5-13-4 for the law dealing with public works. In a nutshell, the state of Indiana holds copyright on all works produced by the government. However, any work which is part of the public records, which would include images like the state seal, or official districting maps, are all clearly public records and there is no problem in using them. The state waives all its rights in controlling image and can only force you to stop using the work by writing you a letter and providing adequate explanation as to why you cannot use it (which is basically that they have to prove that your use of the image harms the public or government in some way). The grey area is in what is public records. The law says that any work created by "Any board, commission, department, division, bureau, committee, agency, office, instrumentality, or authority, by whatever name designated, exercising any part of the executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative power of the state" is a public record. It also is more detailed and says ""Public record" means any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics." So by a broad interpretation, pretty well anything created by the state is free to use, although they own it and can ask you stop if there is a good reason. And "In the case of electronically stored data, [the public is allowed] to manually transcribe and make notes, abstracts, or memoranda or to duplicate the data onto a disk, tape, drum, or any other medium of electronic storage." If you read over the law, there is a pretty fair range of exceptions. Certain boards and agencies, and the use of some logos are limited, as well as certain criminal records.
The template used on a number of Indiana images is the {{pd-because|reason}} When I have used it, I just put "because the copyright for the work is held by the state of Indiana, its duplication is permitted without limitation by the Indiana Code 5-14-3, and the state has waived all restrictions on use of the work." —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I hope to add those maps to the relevant articles this weekend, then. And thanks for working with Xeno on article importance tagging. That should be useful in organizing priorities. Reywas92Talk03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should think so. The governor's portraits belong to the IHB, commissioned and paid for out of IHB budget, and displayed in the state library. 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
coloured links for stubs
Hi Charles Edward.
You seemed in favour of coloured links for stubs. May I ask you to express your opinion in the newly created poll? (Please reread the proposal, many of the deatails have changed.) GeometryGirl (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Paul Dresser
On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Dresser, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You're quite welcome. As a part of going through the NRHP county lists, I always check communities to see if they have pictures of the buildings that are NRHP-listed, and I figured that I might as well throw away some of the garbage :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WPIN auto assessments
I've been thinking about it, and I really don't think Xenobot needs to make 2700 edits tagging Indiana article talk pages for importance. I mean, that's only there for us, the WPIN contributors, right? Well, since we've got Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana/Popular pages, that's completely unnecessary. Truly, article importance isn't based on its category topic, but its readership. The articles listed on Popular pages are the Top 500 most important Indiana articles, and what we should base what articles we improve on that. Perhaps we could instead add a link to the list on the banner. Tagging 2700 articles for importance when very few editors use them and there's a more accurate alternative doesn't make sense to me. I hope that other Wikiprojects will also learn of the Popular pages feature. Thanks, Reywas92Talk22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that depends on how you are defining 'importance'. While it is certainly "important" (dic-def) to have your most popular pages improved as much as possible, popular pages does not always translate into "importance" (WP-def). History of Indiana, for example, is not one of your popular pages. But I don't think anyone would deny that it is of top importance to your project.
Of course, I should probably just keep quiet as if you decide to do away with importance, it'll be less work for lil' ole me =) –xenotalk23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course History of Indiana is top importance even though it doesn't get as many hits, but the system's not perfect. In theory we should rank every article based on what seems most integral to Indiana, but in practice we should cater to our readers by concentrating the most-read articles. I would rather work on articles more likely to be read than those with more perceived importance (but still those I'm interested in of course!). No offense if I'm slamming the purpose of your bot, and never mind if it saves you work, but I don't see the point in tagging every article. Besides, I think most higher-importance articles are already tagged, but those not tagged would be marked as unimportant anyway. Happy editing, Reywas92Talk00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't worry, I don't take offense at all. This is totally up to you guys, I just figured I could lend some insight, as we've had a similar discussion at WP:VG. –xenotalk00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you for the most part Reywas92. Focusing on developing our most read articles should be a priority and popular pages if definatly out best tool for that. And I think for the most part, out present importance ratings are pretty well right on. My understanding of the importance rating though is that it is more intended for WP:Wikipedia 1.0, where project's like ours are not necessarily determining what is important to the project, but what rather is important to the overall encyclopedia. By putting top importance on something, we are saying, "this definatly must be in any official release of Wikipedia, or the encyclopedia is not complete". The 1.0 bot picks the articles using our ratings. Although I was not around way back then, I believe the entire wiki project assessment system was created\redesigned for that purpose, although it has morphed somewhat since then. I am gradually going through all the unassessed articles still, so eventually I will get to manually assessing them eventually. We can leave the importance assessments out for now then and Xeno some work! He is a busy beaver with lots of other good stuff to do I imagine. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sweat it, I can do the importance gig as planned if you still want me to. Xenobot will be there for most of the articles anyway inheriting classes. –xenotalk01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor asked for an extension on the hold to improve the article, but I can't see that anything significant has been done, so I'll just go ahead and delist it. Lampman (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the article significantly since your review.
Most of the referencing issues you mentioned — I think — were simply references at the beginning of paragraphs where I guess you were looking to see them at the end. So I have moved them accordingly. Still there were areas where references were lacking (some very lacking) and I added them accordingly.
I attempted to clean the prose to address some of your concerns. I don't know if I did so adequately at this point.
I added in some additional information based on your content concerns though not so much as you had requested:
Some things I simply did not find sources for (e.g. number of people employed in oil at this time) though I'll keep looking as I have time.
The article is already pushing even the upper limits for recommended size (it is at 63kB and the recommended limit is 40-60). To add more of the content you are recommending would push it way over these limits. So I am unsure whether you are recommending removing content to compensate or what.
Anyway, if you feel like copyediting as you offered before, feel free. I am mostly done for the moment with major edits unless you have more suggestions or want to point out where I misinterpreted your recommendations.
P.S. If you do decide to look at the article again please feel free to pepper it with {{Citation needed}} tags wherever merited. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "citation needed" statements you tagged already have citations. Are you suggesting that the citations should be repeated on these sentences (as opposed to one citation at the end of the paragraph)?
"no widely agreed upon end date" - I'm not sure where I would find a source that explicitly made this statement (sources typically pick their own end dates if they specify a particular end at all; I have never seen one actually say "the other guys might use different dates"). I could simply remove that particular statement but then the paragraph becomes unclear.
BTW, your rephrasing of the Timeframe section implies some abrupt changes at the end of WWII which the sources do not back up. I think you were trying to imply that the second paragraph is vague but that was intentional as there was no particular event that marked a sharp endpoint. Is it better to take this section out altogether? The section is not essential but I think it is valuable as it frames the overall discussion.
I had considered joining it, but my problem is that in December through February I am so exceptionally busy with other things that I don't have a great deal of time for Wikipedia, and I fear that although I could compete well after that, I would probably end up not making much a movement in the first rounds and probably get eliminated off the back before I could begin to get started. I think though that I may give it a shot anyway. I could probably eek out a few DYKs and maybe a GA or two during January and February, but I don't know that it would be enough to keep me in. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.
It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthewtalk at 03:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help?
Since you were so generous with your help in the past I wondered if I might be able to ask your assistance again. Please don't feel obligated.
My article "History of the Galveston Bay Area" is on-hold in GA review at the moment for improvements. The biggest concern is poor writing. Would you have a few minutes for a quick once over? Since it is only GA it does not need to be pristine but since you are a better writer than I am I thought you might be able to suggest improvements for any glaringly bad writing (I have tried to address the reviewers specific concerns but he/she indicated that the article needs more polishing overall).
Hello! I would certainly like to help out. I am exceptionally busy lately, and won't be available to edit alot until at least mid February. If I have some spare time this week though I will give a copy edit for you. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed1719:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "bay system"? I presume it is a natural network of streams, or something of that nature. But I am not sure, you might want to clarify that.
"Bay system" is a term used to refer to the fact that most large bays are typically conglomerations of multiple bodies of water. Galveston Bay is actually subdivided into multiple bays and lakes. I reworded a bit so hopefully it is more clear.
Is this particularly relevant? I removed it: "although there was a previously established Spanish settlement known as Galveztown in what is now Louisiana". If not is makes the sentence it was in rather wordy. If you re add it I would make it a separate sentence.
The only reason I included that detail was because I did not want to imply that this was the first use of this name. Since the name honors a historical figure I thought this helped to point out that the Texas community was not somehow viewed as "special" by the fact that it was given the governor's name.
"They named the site El Orcoquisac and established a Catholic mission. The Spanish were not successful at maintaining trade with the natives and the post was abandoned within a few years." It would be better if you could change the end to be more definitive. By what date was it abondoned? Or about how long did it remain in use?
I have kind of read different things which is why I wasn't more specific. The military post actually got moved although I am given to understand that trading still continued for a while in Orcoquisac. I was vague so as to avoid the complexity.
"o major battles were fought on the mainland shoreline but the region saw some action as the conflict moved from the battles at Galveston to Harrisburg and Houston." Its not clear to me what this sentance means. I think there is some words missing
This was one I didn't know how to address well. The nature of the military engagements on the bay shores is not detailed in the books I have read. The books just mention in passing the presence of Union troops and the troops clearly went from Galveston to Harrisburg and Houston which meant there was large scale troop movement through the Bay Area. It would be wrong to imply that the Bay Area was outside the theater of the war but I don't have too many details about what actually happened there.
"Much of the Allen Ranch was liquidated opening up new development around Pasadena and other bayside communities." Why was the ranch liquidated?
Well, as ranching declined the Allens had been branching into other things. With the death of ... I think it was the founder's grandson ... the heirs sold most of the ranch since most of them had no real interest in the business. I could go into detail on this but this seemed to me like too much of a detail to get into (there are a lot of details about the rise and fall of enterprises that I have not discussed because it just seemed too much to get into).
" The first refinery by the bay opened in Texas City, followed by refineries in Baytown and Pasadena." - are there years for this?
Well, you've done another great job! You've got a nice start on the Cup. However, I was confused by the Reelection campaign section because Minton lost to Raymond E. Willis, not Frederick Van Nuys. Minton and Willis were class 1 Senators, but Van Nuys was class 3 during the same period. Willis is in the electoral box, but isn't mentioned elsewhere. Reywas92Talk21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw where you commented on that, I need to look back at my source. I probably just mixed up the names. It hard to keep all his fights straight, he seemed to get into it with almost everyone! There is another spot where I did that too that I found. I am trying to flush all that out with the other two sources I am using now. Gugin is pretty critical of Minton too, I am trying to find someone who has some nicer things to say about him, for balance. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I had commented on that, but I did hide the part about Truman's reelection campaign the year after the election. Yeah, I did notice that the whole article was cited to a single book, so another one may be good. But I found it odd that he's consistently Democratic while in the Senate, but on the Court you call him conservative. Did he completely change his views? Reywas92Talk21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange, yes. According to the sources so far, he actually disliked many of the decision he made, but felt there was no other way to interpret the law. In looking at a couple other source though, he was rated the most conservative justice on the court for a number of years. I think conservative, in a judicial sense, is a little different than in the political sense though. He more or less thought that the government could do just about whatever it wanted, provided they passed a law to allow it. His decision essentially determined whether the government had granted the powers in a correct manner. Most of his cases though appear to not be particularly politically connected, just mundane stuff. I am still trying to develop the judicial sections, they are kinda flat now, especially the supreme court section. I have a book that critiques the court and analyzes their decisions, I am hoping to get something useful out of it. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great! Thank you very much! I think you had already added a few to Commons, but I'll take it if you have more you think are helpful. I'd like this to be my first GA, but I've still got a way to go. And, of course, congrats on another main pager! Reywas92Talk01:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will start uploading them, I might be able to photoshop a few to better quality. Thanks too! I am suprised they put that on the main page. It makes me nervous when an article I worked on is up there, I don't know why. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you were wondering why I didn't give a GA review for Sherman Minton, it's because I had previously copyedited it, and I'm afraid my reivews aren't as in-depth and thorough as they should be. I'm always happy to do it if it becomes urgent, though. Cheers, Reywas92Talk21:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok! I understand. In my experience a month is the typical wait on a GA review anyway. I reviewed a few out of the category I am in. User:Ironholds has been kind enough to review legal biographies for me in the past, he may be willing do so again. I am not too worried about it yet. I made a trip to the library last week and am planning a few new articles. I expect to get into the next round of the cup unless something unforeseen happens. My schedule is easing up. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sherman Minton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the review :). In regards to images, the first one is considered PD; while there are legal problems over here which could get the uploader into problems (and has), the servers the images are stored on is in a nation where freedom of panorama and similar is accepted. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss one rating on the page, I fixed that. A bot will update the article history and transclude the review automatically, within the next few days. It is also supposed to update the GA listing automatically, but I have went ahead and did that one manually. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, I've just updated the templates & listed Court of Chancery, which you passed a few days back. Seems all OK, but it looks like the bot isn't currently doing this stage of things. Shimgray | talk | 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who commented on my user subpage,
please review this proposal to see if it is feasible I am looking for potential objections by the community.
Hey Charles, I'm Hunter. I saw your listing of Sherman Minton under the Wikicup reviews page. I'd be happy to conduct that review. I'll try to finish it by the end of this week, and we'll make sure it gets done by Feb. 26. — HunterKahn01:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations. Thank you for the encomium. It has been a pleasure working with you. I suspect that my latest addition could be profitably copy-edited down. I know you'll be there as always. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
BLP question/comment and Spoilers?
Hi Charles:
Thank you for welcoming me to the editing world of Wiki*. I have made many anonymous minor edits previously and signed up so I could send a comment to a "Spoiler". Is a spoiler someone who reveals the outcome of something before all potential viewers/readers have a chance to view/read about it through the normal channels? My particular "beef" was concerning Survivor Samoa and the finale on December 20th. I live in San Francisco and near the beginning of the two hour finale I went to the Wiki page of a list of all Survivor contestants to read up on someone. Some editor in the eastern part of the country, at least 2 hours ahead of the Pacific time zone, posted the winner's name thus ruining the surprise for me and perhaps others. To a lesser degree, the same thing happened last night with the results of the first person being ejected in the new Survivor season being posted before the west coast had a chance to see it. The editor's response was, "If you don't want to see it, don't go there". A logical response... My analogy was, "If you witnessed the death of a very famous person, would you rush to post that information on their Wikipedia biography page before family members had a chanced to be informed"? Response: "if I don't post it someone else will".
Concerning biographies of living persons: The thing I have liked so much about Wikipedia is the biographies. Sometimes the only place I can find anything about a person is on Wikipedia and now editors want to delete some of these bios because of reasons like,
"Insignificant notability; only placed 5th on reality TV and had minor roles."
So what. Is computer memory in such short supply that the "Shane Powers" bio should be deleted? I'm glad I read his before he is relegated back into anonymity. And from what I read, there are 45,000 other insignificant biographies that "need" deleting. This isn't a matter of lead type and ink costs. His eight lines must cost one bazillionth of a cent to store. My vote is to leave biographies alone if they have the remotest significance... i.e. more than 10,000 people are aware of their existence or some other benchmark number like that. This seems like a lot of "make work" for editors. What next, eliminate the Wiki-pages of towns that have less than so many residents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torturella (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite familiar with the guidelines of GA, thank you. GAN "on hold" status is for articles that are very close to meeting the criteria, and is not intended as a "back-and-forth" over several weeks to improve articles that need lots of work. That's actually more what peer review is for, and IMHO, PR would be far more effective at improving the article since it would give the article more exposure to more editors, as opposed to the single editor system at GAN. Furthermore, with a very large backlog of over 300 unreviewed articles at GAN, reviewers simply don't have time to put every article that's nominated "on hold".
I hope to see Harrison County, Indiana renominated at GAN once it meets the criteria. But in its current state, which contains too many sections that are really just bulleted lists, I honestly can't say that the article is "very close" to meeting the GA criteria at this time. WTF? (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised my review based on guidelines at WP:COUNTY as well as the WP:MOS. Apologies, but I am more familiar with city articles as opposed to county articles, so I often think that more needs to be there when it really doesn't. The article is on hold again, pending revisions. WTF? (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for James Oliver (inventor)
On February 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Oliver (inventor), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I miss this when you added it! Sorry! Thats ok, i won't contest it. Seemed pretty limited to me when I read it, but I think what you've added clears up the problem. Good job! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying (mainly in vain) to use Findlaw to get links to all of those many cases cited in the article. e.g., Modernistic Candies v. Federal Trade Commission. This is one obvious area for improvement in the article. I've got other fish to fry for now (and I am very frustrated with this, too), so I am giving up and merely offering a suggestion. To me, just dropping a name without a citation and without (even better) a link is not up to my professional standards. I wouldn't do it in a brief, and I don't think an encyclopedia should either. While I don't know if that is required to get FA for an article, I think it should be taken care of. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I can probably get the case numbers, etc, from my sources. I have located most of the cases on List of Supreme Court Case articles, I was thinking of redirecting the titles to those lists? I dunno though. As far as the text of the cases, I am not sure where to look for them. I have hunted for a few through some online supreme court archives, but with no luck. The opinions are all PD though, and if I can locate them they can be copied to Wikisource. I will dig and see what I can find. Thanks! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)19:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cornell Law School has a complete rendition of Supreme Court decisions, I think. Findlaw I thought did. But I am having trouble with e.g., Modernistic Candies v. Federal Trade Commission, Sunkist v. Sunkist and Kellogg’s v. General Mills, etc. All of those red link cases. I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but these are all public domain, and should exist somewhere. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Those three are 7th circuit decisions, not Supreme Court. Could be why you are having a hard time. I located modernistic candies number, I am trying to find the text of it. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should double check those titles as well. It is possible I accidentally annotated the names of the cases. They could have longer names. I don't think Minton personally authored most of the decisions himself, either. I've removed the links from all the 7th Circuit cases except US v. Knauer, there seems to be alot of precedents built around that case. The rest are unlikely to ever have their own articles. I need to check another book I don't have with me for the numbers of Sunkist v Sunkist and Kelloggs v. General Mills. Google is not turning up anything promising, so I am guessing I've shortened a longer name on them. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will check that out, the case is mentioned in the article now without a whole lot of details, just summing up the results. Better explaining it would go a long way though to show why people thought he was not on the side of individual liberties. I have found there to be a significant variance in my sources regarding his opinions, but on the most part, his time on the court appears to be viewed very negatively. There are a few decisions where he is applauded, but generally, he is not at all appreciated by history. I have a paragraph about that in the legacy section, but tying it into the body of the article more would be a good thing. I will try to do that this afternoon. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)13:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Pantheon of losers on the court, I would think that Minton (who was at least very personable, and some of the sources remark on that and its beneficial effect on a divided court) pails by comparison to James Clark McReynolds -- seeBiography, James Clark McReynolds at 6th CircuitU.S. Court of Appeals, which has some points that need to be put into our article on McReynolds -- who was at best dyspeptic and at worst vitriolic in his open bigotry and disdain for almost everyone, including other members of the court. Of course, I would say that the quality of decisions is probably the best benchmark of judicial quality at that level. And in Minton's defense, he was consistent in his toadying respect for Congress and its judgments, and in his disdain for judicial interventionism. In that sense he was a believer in republicanism (small "r") and the rule/role/supremacy of Congressional will. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Charles: the latest Gugin article I cited presents a reasoned antidote to the 'low judicial ranking' assessment of Minton. There is reason to question the methodology and conclusions of such broad-stroked assessments, and Minton suffers in part because he was very much Taft's understudy at Yale, I think. Indeed, that he had served on all three branches of government profoundly delimited his view of the court's role in judicial review of both legislative and executive action. I think it deserves citation and paraphrase, at least. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
You have reference/cite errors. I don't want to interfere with you FA quest (which seems arduous and more trouble than I want to take on personally -- Ariens is not an idiot, and would be a perfectly respectable source as far as I'm concerned), so I won't mess with them. Indeed, dumping "find a grave" is stupid (by that I mean we are 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'), as it is the only source for a picture of Minton's gravesite -- and I don't think calling this in a pejorative sense 'all wiki' negates the photo (not to mention that Wikipedia is all wiki, and some of this is actually meritorious). But you make the call, as I don't want to get cross wise with you or your quest. Instead, I'm giving you a 'head's up.' 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I do not disagree about Ariens, I made a comment to that effect on the fac page, Gugin made a similar statement so I rephrased and attributed to her. If they relent we can add it back. I also agree that find a grave add value to the article, in comparing what is there with my source, the only difference was the address was not mentioned in my book, so I removed that. I agree that some of our policies are not effective in every situation. Seeing how I live about five miles from Minton's house and grave I suppose I should go take a photo or two!! In either case, I've moved both to the external links so they are still there in some way. Once FA's pass, you can usually go back and make a few cosmetic changes without any problems. I enjoy going through the process though, I find it kinda fun, and besides getting an article on the front page now and then can really draw edits to a project. Like when I get a DYK, its get a few dozens edits there, plus more from article linked to it. Something like Minton on the front page would bring hundreds of edits to Indiana project articles. That's the real reason I go for it. By getting one good article our there, it draws activity to the project with furthers the projects aims! I really do appreciate your help and insight, have you ever considered being involved with WP:PR? I think you'd be great there. There are a lot of editors that like having input and help with articles. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)21:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put back in a couple of cites (Ariens & Oyez.org) because you eliminated the refname, and left in subsequent references. Oyez seems like a perfectly good source -- almost impeccable as on line sources go given the subject matter and its pedigree.
I am not being perverse, but simply didn't want the red reference errors.
No, I have never considered WP:PR. I am happy being a WP:wikignome, and have no aspirations. This has left me free to wander -- I wandered into Sherman Minton only because of connections with other articles that I had an interest in. I am not disparaging your efforts, and can truly see the benefit. Indeed, it's fun to be part of a success story, and I can see how this might get you some needed help in Indiana.
But I wander where I want and contribute as I will on subjects that happen to be of interest to me, generally on subjects that I know something about. Like all those Michigan lighthouse articles, which continue to be marked as "stub" and "start", despite having more information in them than virtually any of the written works on the subject and any of the on line resources (barring the Terry Pepper Seeing the Light website). Lack of meaningful classification and review of these kinds of articles is only a source of frustration for editors. (Yes, I know I'm making a case for your WP:PR). Wikipedia is really short on Positive reinforcement, and much longer and stronger on Negative reinforcement. One has to really want to contribute to continue under those conditions. Anyway, I digress. Best of luck to you in your quest. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Charles, I feel your anguish. You have my sympathy. I would suggest that you take a few days off, so that you can look at this article with fresher eyes. It's very hard to edit when you are as immersed as you have been. 'Bastardo non carborundum', or something like that. FWIW, your asking for broader review and help can't hurt, and I support you. I would suggest that you look at the Frank book and some of the others (e.g., Cushman) listed in Further Reading, as they may give some insight that we've missed. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
DYK for Harelle
On March 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harelle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On March 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commentarii de Bello Civili, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This is not true. I am not now, was not then, nor have I ever been banned from Wikipedia. For several months in 2009, I left Wikipedia on my own, but there was never any "ban." True, some people claim that I am under some sort of sanction forbidding me from working in project-space (a claim I dispute, but I'm not going to bore you with the details since you don't care); but I have never been "banned" from Wikipedia altogether. Kurt Weber (GoColts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 21:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite sorry! please feel free to fix it. I can if you like. Would you like to go in the active or inactive list? The list hadn't been updated for some years, so I cleaned it some months ago. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, could you put me in the active list? There are several people who would throw a fit even if I did something as simple, harmless, and noncontroversial as that. Kurt Weber (GoColts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 19:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Xeno already got it.[6] Sorry about that again. If you are ever interested in collaborating on an Indiana something feel free to let me know, if you are not permitted to do so on the project page. There's not really a great deal of interest in the project besides a few of us now. I think some people just have their name there for the heck of it. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Sorry to post here Charles, but I have a question regarding an Indiana related page I thought you might be able to help with. I am not too active with Wiki so am unsure of the best way to post on a discussion board.
Its ok, you are welcome to post here anytime, its a wiki after all! :) I'd be glad to email you, but you are welcome to let me know here unless its something personal. Plus you can email me anytime by clicking the "email this user" link on the right hand pain in the "toolbox" section. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)01:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles,
Thanks for the reply. Nothing personal, I just noticed Mitch Daniels' page was getting a lot of traffic recently with some starting to get away from Wiki standards. As an editor, I did not know your thoughts on getting some sort of protection on the page to help prevent this. I am not sure of all the levels, or when it is appropriate to seek such protection, but thought I would start by asking the pro.
Well, I wouldn't claim to be a pro! :) But getting a page protected would require admin assistance. WP:Protection policy discusses the policy surrounding page protection. Generally, the page has to be consistently vandalized to get protected from anonymous editing, and major ongoing vandalism for it to be fully protected from editing. {vandalism here means violating Wikipedia policies intentionally) Both forms of protections generally expire after a set time period. The best first step to keeping an article from being vandalized is to monitor it regularly. Daniels article is on my watch list and I generally review all the anonymous edits made to the page and tone down or remove things that appear inappropriate. I have not did any major work on the article though for about a year. If you have issues with particular items in the article, you can bring them up on Talk:Mitch Daniels and they can be addressed there. If you have references that meet the WP:Reliable Sources policy, you can make the changes yourself as well, or just put a link to the source on the talk page and someone else will check it out as time allows. Of course, everyone is encouraged to WP:Be Bold! I hope this info helps. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On March 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Civil War medicine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Charles, I've just put in facts that would warrant a DYK, but am having trouble getting this up to what I believe is the requisite number of bytes (5X?). Any suggestions would be appreciated. Although perhaps its just a lost cause -- I don't want it bad enough to spend the money on the Justor article, for example. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I made a bit of editing to the front end. It is enough to get on DYK now. Its 120 characters over the required expansion. Nice article! If I have some time tomorrow, I will work on it some more. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know anything about DYKs other than what I read at WP:DYK. Assuming your count it right, if we add the succession box for the Massachusetts legislature and the categories, then this shouldn't be hard to do. Frankly, this judge and his quirkiness are all surprising news to me. Thanks for pitching in. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
There is a handy tool you can add to your monobook.js. There is info on it here: User:Shubinator/DYKcheck. It gives you a link on the side and it will scan the article and tell you if it is eligible. When I run it, it says the article is acceptable for DYK now. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times book review that I put into the article should be fertile ground for additions to the article. It is of his memoir, and he was not shy about saying he was God's gift to the legal profession, etc. Thanks for the guidance. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Merciless Parliament
On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merciless Parliament, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
