User talk:Cmguy777

Welcome!

Hello, Cmguy777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Thomas Jefferson and slavery, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

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

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Snake River Scene Edit.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Snake River Scene Edit.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shurlz

...that's a new one. Do you use speech recognition software?  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are implying by srs. I do not use that. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was trying to be funny. There seems to be structural impossibility for many English speakers to get my name right, either mangling the given name, or the family name (which is surprising, given that Charles M. Schulz with the same name is quite well-known). You added a new variant that I don't recall having seen previously here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. There was a German born U.S. Senator Carl Schurz who stated "My country right or wrong..." That is why I believe I added the "r". When I get typing fast I tend to make spelling errors. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize - you're not the first (by far), you will not be the last, and I do make typos all the time, too. But thanks for fixing it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TFX fighter-bomber controversy

The section looks fine to me. Good job. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kiersek. Good job. I added more on the F-111 costs and history. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good detail therein. You may want to copy-edit some of it over to the F-111 article. BTW- Something else which may be of interest to you is adding a section on the 1960 U-2 incident into the main body of Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is very briefly mentioned in the lede but not the main article and is something which should be a sub-section. I don't have the time today, and thought it may be of interest to you. Kierzek (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Part of the TFX fighter-bomber controversy can added to the F-111 article. The 1968 Life Magazine article is really neat because it went over what the TFX program was and what pilots thought of the plane and the controversy between the Navy and the Air Force. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds interesting. Kierzek (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Hamlet Program

I added the lede sentences to JFK, as discussed and added the corresponding information and links on the Strategic Hamlet Program into the Southeast Asia section. Please add the book cite pages therein. The paperback version: Karnow, Stanley (1991). Vietnam, A History. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-74604-0 is already in the Bibliography section (it is cited in the article already from a past addition). Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kierzek. The edit really adds to the article. Behind the Peace Corp Kennedy was excalating the Vietnam War. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. We still need the Karnow page cites; I don't have the paperback book anymore. Also, if you have the time maybe you can add the needed cites to the Strategic Hamlet Program article; I saw some cn there. Kierzek (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Strategic Hamlet program is cited on pages 272-273 in the Karnow (1997) book Vietnam. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting that in. Kierzek (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George S. Boutwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Black Friday
John F. Kennedy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Washington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JFK talk page is not a forum

I reverted your latest entry because the talk page is not for discussion of the topic. Instead, it is for improvement of the article. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I resent having my talk page discussion being deleted. I was defending my view that discussing J. Edgar Hoover, the Secret Service, and Marilyn Monroe would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:John F. Kennedy for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used Kennedy talk page as a forum. I resent being accused. I could say you and other editors have a forum also and that is the protection of Kennedy's legacy. That is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COOL

Srich32977 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Cool down, nobody is ganging up on you. (Or should I say "Nobody are ganging up on you."?) – S. Rich (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks S. Rich. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CMguy -- you are taking those comments much too personally. This is just Wikipedia, where everyone volunteers their efforts. But you are not helping the project, or yourself, by adding comments about how you do not like what other editors are saying about you. Come on. Stop. Take a WikiBreak. – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you refering to the Huell Howser article? I told them I was going to take a break, but they kept berating me. I have to defend my reputation as an editor. They need to stop too. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You are re-acting on a talk page about an article with comments that do not help improve the article. If you don't like the way they are treating you, bring it up on their talk pages. Not the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to escalate anymore then it has, but they have not talked to me on my talk page. They berated me in the discussion page so I responded in the discussion page. Again. I can take a break from the article. I believe the Huell Howser article needs to be expanded and improved. However, I am open to taking a break from discussion. Thanks S. Rich. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. I hatted the Howser discussion, and I think reopening it would not help anyone. Take your break, then consider where we can achieve consensus for improvements on Howser, and make your edits along those lines. WP is not about who's right or wrong, but about how we work together to achieve a better product. While you are on your break, consider offering those guys a {{cheeseburger}} and say you're sorry that you got hot under the collar. (Use their talkpages to do so.) My bet is that they will enjoy the cheeseburgers and all will be well with the world. Regards. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can apologize on their respected talk pages. Ironically, I used the talk page to work out any disagreements and to find consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology

Usually, I just respond to a comment on one talk page, and perhaps place a "talk back" message on the other. In this case, noticing the conversation above, I am responding in both places.

Your apology is gracious, appreciated, but not really necessary. Nothing you said offended me. This is a common disagreement about content, not anything personal. You have accepted the consensus about the rumor, and perhaps a better source on that issue will come along in the future. So there we disagreed, but you brought forward a very useful source for expanding less contentious aspects of the Howser biography. For that, I am sincerely grateful. So let's all cool down, put disagreement behind us, and then collaborate to improve this article about a man who truly loved California, as I do. I am sure you do as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo to you both! – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sol Estes affair

I added another cite to the info. I wrote on the JFK talk page as to the Agriculture/Texas/LBJ affair. As you probably know, Estes just died with his body discovered on 14 May. One of these days some of this LBJ "information" we have discussed over the recent months on the JFK talk page (including this matter) needs to be added in a NPOV way to Johnson's article. I just don't have the time right now. Kierzek (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kierzek. Yes. Estes recently died and I believe the New York Times did a good article and possibly filled in gaps. Johnson was Vice President at the time of the Estes scandal. Kennedy had to answer to charges of corruption under Secretary of Agriculture Freeman. The part concerning Johnson could be put in the Johnson article. Kennedy did know about the "murder" of the investigator in Texas. However, he was told the murder had to do with an affair rather then the Estes investigation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks re USA talk

Hi, I have read this part of the USA talk page four times now. I don't see where you have been accused of racism. As far as I can tell, you have not. Perhaps I have missed something. I have seen a sentence that suggests the article is starting looks like it has been written by a racial activist. That is an editor's opinion on the flavor of the writing that doesn't mention you or any editor by name. If, however, you think there has been a personal attack you should consider taking it to the person's talk page and possibly WP:ANI. Repeating your accusations on the article talk page again and again is not helpful and may, in fact, be considered by some to be personal attacks in its own right. At the very least it doesn't lead to cool and calm discussion of issues. The talk page is for the article, ANI and personal talk pages are for resolving NPA issues. For What Its Worth. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. If you have been accused of racism by another editor, I suggest immediately talking to them on their talk page and consider taking it to ANI. It is a personal attack that is improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you concern Capitalsmojo. Gwillhickers has never apologized. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canbys Cross Memorial Site Photo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Canbys Cross Memorial Site Photo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

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

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:General John Charles Frémont Healy.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:General John Charles Frémont Healy.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Architect on Jefferson page

Hi Cm', we are still discussing whether or not to include 'Architect' in the infobox and moreover, whether we should cover this better in the article itself with a subsection, so we need more informed opinions from people who have been involved with the page. -- Gwillhickers 18:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grant sub-articles

Hey Cmguy, I mentioned an idea I had here, but I think it got lost among our other discussions. What do you think? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing book ref at Marshall Jewell

Could you please clarify the book ref 'Holloway' that you cite in your work at Marshall Jewell. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added book reference: Laura Carter Holloway (1885), 'Famous American Fortunes and the Men who Have Made Them' Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

I'm trying to format that citation you left on U.S. Grant. Does that article have a title or an author? Is it online? If so, let me know and I'll add it. I'm trying to keep things orderly. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus. I got from JSTOR article: The Racial Views of Ulysses S. Grant The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education No. 66 (Winter 2009/2010), pp. 26-27. I could not find an author to the article. The article was published by the The JBHE Foundation, Inc. Here is the article URL: The Racial Views of Ulysses S. Grant.
Thanks, I'll try to sort it all out. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome Coemgenus. I thought and African American point of view would help out. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a peer reviewed journal? It looks like a trade magazine. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in JSTOR, a non-profit, not a publisher site, that gives access to 1,500 archived journals. I don't know if The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education is peer reviewed. The journal looks to be more then a "trade magazine" having articles on African American issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what JSTOR is, I'm more concerned that the article lacks footnotes. And an author. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a concern on not stating an author. I wanted an African American perspective on Grant. Black historians believe Lincoln, Grant, and Benjamin Franklin were anti racist in their policies. McPherson confirms the Election of 1872 was a fair election. Possibly we could look for alternative sources that confirm the articles statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback on "United States"

Thanks for posting your feedback on "United States".

You posted this comment on 27 June 2013 (view all feedback).

This article ignores slavery in the North and South and how slavery was the foundation of America rather then freedom or being a republic. You can't be a republic and millions of slaves. I suggest that instead of reading Wikipedia, read other books that have a less impartial view of history and are not afraid to tackle controversial issues.

One of Wikipedia's founding principles is to be completely unbiased, impartial, and neutral in all affairs. The article "Slavery in the United States" provides plenty of insight in to the role of slaves, slavery, and slave trade in the US's history. Another Wikipedia article, entitled "Treatment of slaves in the United States", gives an even more in depth look at slavery in the United States.

Furthermore, one cannot claim that Wikipedia is partial with regards to the role of slavery in the United States' history; people from all over the world contribute to Wikipedia, not just Americans. Wikipedia is not "afraid to tackle controversial issues", thus its articles about topics ranging from the Vietnam War to gay rights; the Holocaust to global warming; child labor, sex trafficking, illegal drugs, hate crimes, the 2013 IRS scandal, free speech, Nazism, capital punishment, atheism, Glenn Beck, intensive animal farming, hydraulic fracturing, Playboy magazine, rape, creationism, self-harm, abortion, obesity, genocide, and terrorism, to name a few. Next time, think before you write.

Also, fix your grammatical issues: it's than not then, and your second sentence is, in actuality, but a fragment. I apologize for my fastidiousness, but it was warranted by your unfounded comments. Hea päev, härra. We appreciate your contributions to this page!

Dylanvt (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Cooperation

The Half Barnstar
For your continued good work on the difficult task of bringing the Ulysses S. Grant presidential biography and associated articles to a high quality, and for keeping cool while pursuing resolution and cooperation with User:Coemgenus even when disagreeing, I award you this distinctively shared barnstar. Cooperation as Wikipedians even when disagreeing is the hallmark of the Wikipedia community's best members. Congratulations. BusterD (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Cmguy777!

Happy New Year!
Hello Cmguy777:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Ping!

-- Gwillhickers 01:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ulysses S. Grant cultural depictions may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //www.imdb.com/title/tt0531288/ '''''The Assassins: Part One''''']], IMBD, viewed on 02-01-2014]]</ref><ref>[[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0531289/ '''''The Assassins: Part Two''''']], IMBD, viewed

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Cailil talk 14:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are clear on this Cmguy777 the above is purely a notification and not an accusation of misconduct. But if you are going to make edits relating to the Men's rights movement you need to know that this is an area covered by a probation due to on and off disruption of this site's processes and policies in that topic area--Cailil talk 14:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I did not ever edit on the Men's rights movement article! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ulysses S. Grant. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Ulysses S. Grant. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ulysses S. Grant – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. reddogsix (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

worth adding to Grant bibliog

to the bio and to the bibl articles: A Companion to the Reconstruction Presidents 1865-1881 (Wiley Blackwell Companions to American History) by Edward O. Frantz (Jun 3, 2014) online Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rjensen. This can be added to the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes and it's important enough for the main article too. Parts are on Amazon--see ch 16 pp 328 on what has been written on Grant. VERY useful suggestions for the Bibliog article. Rjensen (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rjensen. I have tried to look up page 328 through Amazon and Google but the page has not been displayed. The book has allot of good information from what I have read so far. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the A Companion Guide to the Reconstruction Presidents 1865-1881 source to the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your efforts at building, organizing and composing the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant        
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Rjensen Gwillhickers! The The American Presidency Project at the University of Santa Barbara really helped the Grant Bibiliography article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the things I liked about the article, that it offered insights into the accounts on USGrant. Btw, my user name isn't Rjensen. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gwillhickers. I made a correction to the thanks. I appreciate the award Gwillhickers. I was not completely aware you read the Ulysses S. Grant article. From what I have read both Jefferson and Grant had rational personalities. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cmguy777. Thap potentially ambuiguous remark led me at once to Blockade runners of the American Civil War, where they had at least a 80% rate of success. Do you have a rational answer to that, Gwillhickers ? --Askedonty (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cm', I was referring to the USG bibliography when I referred to 'the article' above. Btw, I noticed you're using the 'cite book' template to list sources. I did the same thing when I first began building the Bibliography of early American naval history but after a while there were so many templates on one page it caused page load/save problems due to server overload, as every time the page was saved all of those templates had to be initialized at once. At one point it took a minute or more for a save to go through. As soon as I removed the templates and just listed the sources using straight text the problem disappeared. Since the sources in the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant are not linked up to citations there's no need for the cite book templates. The USGrant bibliography isn't quite that large yet but it's something to think about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Askedonty, I'm not sure I'm following you here. What was said here that led you to the Blockade runners' article? in any case, the success rate of blockade runners varied, and got worse as the war progressed. The 80% is an overall figure, and accounts do vary somewhat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant and Eureka

Greetings Cmguy777: I have made some slight changes over at U.S. Grant's page as there was kerfuffle that he was not an historic person in Eureka, California. I have added a couple of citations, and one of them presents a date difficulty. Grant was at Fort Humboldt from August to April (five months) but the article formerly said he was there nearly a year. I found a citation and have changed it. There is at least one anonymous editor making changes to Eureka, California claiming Grant was not a notable person in history who was there, so I have changed the wording in the Grant article to nail down that where Fort Humboldt is now is entirely within the city limits of Eureka. BTW, it is not true there is no local mention of his drunkeness. Seth Kinman writes in his memoirs extensively about Grant's insobriety - it's why Kinman would have nothing to do with him, an attitude echoed by many of the contemporary locals. Even the name of the saloon where he spend most of his time is recorded! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes to the article Ellin Beltz. Would not August to April be August, September, November, December, January, February, March, April be eight months. Is Seth Kinman a reliable source? Also who is to determine whether Grant was drunk without any sobriety testing. Grant's drunkeness appears to be subjective. Buchannan may have heard, not observed, that Grant was drunk when he was off duty and charged him with drunkeness on duty. No one is doubting that Grant drank on the coast but the question is whether Grant was fairly discharged from the U.S. Military. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: My edits were summarily reverted despite providing citation to the correct date of his discharge which was in April. His unit was summoned to north coast in August, travel was not instantaneous - there were no airports then. The unit arrived at some time later than August, and he quit in April, about "five months later" as was remarked by the anonymous editor. August of 1853 to July of 1854 would be eleven months or closer to a year. The citation I provided gave the exact dates. The article has the wrong date "July 31, 1854" uncited.

I personally don't care if Grant drank water or wine, my concern is that the date is incorrect. The article makes a quoted mention that there are no contemporary reports of his insobriety which is incorrect but it's unimportant because it's clearly cited. I made no attempt to change it regardless of whether there are local reports of his bad behavior or not. Is Seth Kinman reliable? Did I cite him in the article? No, I cited a biography about Grant and mentioned Kinman here to you as you seem to have an interest in Grant. Kinman was contemporary with him and has a lot to say about him in his memoirs.

I did what I was told to do by an admin (which was "put it on the talk page"). Subsequently there were cranky comments made on the talk page, and my edit fixing the date error (with citations) was knee-jerk reverted. I doubt if the reverting editor even read it. I don't understand the "importance" of ownership of any article on Wiki that would bring out the cranky and points-scoring with other editors who provide information and citations. Perhaps they disagreed with me maintaining the Eureka page against anonymous removal edits, but there's no reason to lose the polite and go for the points-scoring.

Regardless. I have a personal policy Wiki editing that when I run into a seriously pwnd article like this one, I remove myself from the equation. Let the nasty be nasty, I wash my hands of Grant, he and his talk page are coming off my watchlist. I won't be the one to return him to Eureka, he was there before I ever edited the Eureka page, and if he returns you all can fight it out with someone else. Any date errors and lack of citation for facts in the Grant article are no longer my problem. Have a lovely day. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort on editing Grant and concern for the correct date. You would have to talk with Coemgenus why Coemgenus reverted the edit although Coemgenus did give reasons why Coemgenus reverted the edit. The initial narration was good and compact. Apparently Seth Kinman mentioned this in his Memoirs rather then a direct journal. We have no proof Kinman ever met Grant. Does Grant mention Kinman in his Memoirs? "Cranky edits" are common on Wikipedia. I understand that getting an edit reverted is not fun. Thanks for your talk contributions and concern for the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire chapter on Grant in Eureka, in Irvine, History of Humboldt County California - Historic Record Co., Los Angeles, 1915 CHAPTER VII. - Grant's Career in Humboldt County pages 52 to 62. It details many specifics including the dates of commission, arrival, departure and life in the county which Grant found dreary. It also confirms that Fort Humboldt was in Eureka. One paragraph in that chapter reads "Fresh beef was not always to be had, but Grant made a contract with Seth Kinman, a famous hunter of those days, to supply the commissary department with elk meat. After Grant became president of the United States, old Seth Kinman traveled to Washington and presented his old-time friend with a chair made of polished elk horns." As for did they ever meet, yes I think they did. Does Grant mention Kinman? I have no idea. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My question is what source(s) did the Historic Record Co. Los Angeles (1915) get this information from? i.e. Seth Kinman? Also does this book mention anything about Grant's drinking? The other issue is that 1915 is not the most recent source, 99 years ago. I am currently going through the article to improve narration and accuracy of the article for FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above source Historic Record Co. Los Angeles (1915) states "A vast amount of cloudy tradition has grown up regarding his (Grant) stay in Humboldt." This, in my opinion, means we need to be wary about what is said about Grant in Humboldt. Coemgenus added the word "effective" to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant

Hello, just saw that this article failed at FAC. It's a shame since I saw you've spent quite some time on the article, and I didn't even get to leave input before the nomination closed. I've done some copyediting to the article, and if you'd like can give suggestions for improvement through its talk page. Better luck next time. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Valliant efforts, so do not be discouraged, if this is still something you want, take Snuggums up on his offer and keep plugging. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks. I would appreciate input into the article. Suggestions for article improvement are welcome ! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker: Thanks. I won't get discouraged. The article is much improved due to the FA review. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson portrait

Hi Cmguy77- My first attempt was to create the feeling of a closely cropped image without cropping the original file. I tried adding the whole image. If it doesn't work just let me know. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CSS_image_crop is what I used...-Godot13 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Godot13 Hi. The thumb format is good but the photo needs to be cropped more. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited previous ping.

I have copyedited my previous ping at Talk: Jefferson and slavery. My point is that Jefferson’s views and proposals over time and circumstance should be reflected in the article. In our discussions, we should try to stay focused on Jefferson and his times. I mean to withdraw my heated remarks directed at Cmguy777 there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secede/Succeed, Secession/Succession

I found this webpage that may be of use to you: Secede vs. succeed —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amos T. Akerman

Thank you for your substantial contributions to Amos T. Akerman. In January 2012 you created two repeatedly-used named refs that don't fully inform the reader what they are. Specifically:

  • At 22:19, 10 January 2012 you introduced <ref name="Parker (9/12/2002)">Parker (9/12/2002), ''Amos T. Akerman (1821-1880)''</ref>
  • At 01:56, 23 January 2012 you introduced <ref name="Brown, (1997)">Brown (1997), ''Amos T. Akerman 1821-1880''</ref>

I could not find a book in the Library of Congress catalog based on these descriptions. If these are journal references, please provide more complete references including the journal name, article title, author, page numbers, etc. If these are book chapters, please provide the book title, editor, publisher, ISBN, etc. Also, if these are book references, the book(s) should probably go under "Sources" and then you could use short references with page numbers on each ref to each of the two sources. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to check to find the orginal sources... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Parker (9/12/2002) reference...trying to find the Brown (1997) reference...I may use a reference replacement... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Henry Williams

Thank you for your contributions to George Henry Williams. In May 2012 you added a reference to a book, perhaps with an incorrect copyright date. Specifically:

  • At 20:24, 31 May 2012 you introduced <ref name=DOAB>Dictionary of American Biography (1936), ''George Henry Williams''</ref>

The listings at catalog.loc.gov show 23 books with that title, none copyright 1936. Would you please provide the book title, editor, publisher, and possibly correct the date? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link: Williams George Henry Dictionary of American Biography (1936) Editor is Dumas Malone... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome ! Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Tom Graves?

Hi there, I recently proposed some changes to the article for Rep. Tom Graves, as a consultant on his behalf, so I think it's best that I avoid editing directly myself. However, it's been two weeks and no one has responded. Since you're active on U.S. politics and history, I thought I'd see if you'd be willing to take a look. Currently, some sections are lacking in detail or WP:RS citations, or both, and I'm offering some suggestions to fix these issues. I also see a few areas where the wording does not conform to the cited source and / or is not encyclopedic. To start, I've made a few suggestions on the Talk page here. If you're able to review, let me know! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invitation...I will have to decline...I am from California...I don't know anything about current Georgia politics...thanks...my focus has been on former Presidents particularly Ulysses S. Grant and Thomas Jefferson... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. I should add that the issues on the page don't require any special knowledge about Georgia politics, but about general Wikipedia issues. But since it seems you're busy on these pages, I'll keep looking. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.Grant FAC

@Cmguy777, Coemgenus, and Rjensen: Cm', I'm responding to your inquiry here as apparently my continued participation on the Grant talk page will be counter productive in terms of stability/FAC, as I have been strongly asserting the idea that many major details are missing -- including an entire topic: private and boarding school in Kentucky. I have been doing much reading on Grant this past couple of weeks, on line and at the library, where I have also ordered several modern books. I think I can safely say that almost any source on Grant, new or old, worth its salt will at least mention Grant's first journey away from home where he attended a seminary in Maysville, and then a boarding school in Ripley, both across the Ohio River in Kentucky, not far from his home in Georgetown, Ohio. Here are some sources, one old, two new (1, 2). While page length is a legitimate concern I would at least try to cover this topic with at least a good sentence. This topic involves the four years leading up to Grant's enrollment at West point. Good luck guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is important and should be included. I reject the idea that artificial length limitations should be imposed by outsiders who don't know much about Ulysses Grant or American generals and presidents. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rjensen. Yes, that's always been one of my beefs with the FA process altogether - reviewers who don't know much at all about the subject while they focus their 'criticism' on one, academic, idea. While there are practical limits to any narrative it would seem that as long as the 'content' is inclusive and comprehensive that this page length guideline could be waved, or at least not adhered to in such a dogmatic manner. If page length is the only 'criticism' that can be levied against this FAC I will voice my disapproval towards such narrow estimations at FAC. Hope I am not alone in the effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GWhillickers, you can always work to change the FA guidelines, too. Some people might agree with you. I just aim to follow the rules of this place, and I know working for that sort of bureaucratic change might be frustrating, but if it's something you feel strongly about, you should go for it. You might change some minds. And, if it makes you feel better, the upper limits of length have been gradually getting longer for years now. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, all of us would cooperate to try to adhere to policies and standards. Unilaterally excepting oneself from the rules is not only self-defeating, but defeats the efforts of good-faith editors who are trying to abide by the rules. RJensen, since you've had actual books published, you know you have to agree with the editor or find a different publisher. The same principle applies here: the rules for FAs are well-established, and unless they are changed, each contributor should take care to abide by them. Otherwise, s/he falls into WP:DISRUPT.
Coemgenus has not asserted ownership of the article, but has steadfastly been collegial. I do not assign ownership to him, either, but beg you all to consider the labor he has invested in it and at least let him bring it to FA in peace. This page and this one reveal some of the time, thought, and skill he has spent on it. Yo Pienso (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: I agree that a sentence or two on Grant's education would be appropriate for the article. But let's be realistic, Grant was no theologian, he was general and President. Coemgenus does not own the article, but he has steadfastly getting the article up to FA standards following Wikipedia rules. I believe editors can work together, respectfully within reasonable size limits, to get Grant to FA. What is a reasonable size can be debated by editors if current wikipedia rules allow. In my opinion that should be the primary goal. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not have any rules about article length-- they merely have guidelines. Those were originally written in the days of telephone modems in which downloading time and expense was a serious issue. Back in Ulysses Grant's day, telegrams were very expensive and people paid very close attention to how few words they could use. Postage was expensive too, especially international letters. So what people did was write very small covering both sides of the sheet. Then they would turn the page sideways, use a different color ink, and keep writing so that they had four pages of text on one sheet of paper. (you can still see these In historical Society archives-- the pages are just barely legible in their original format, and when xeroxed into black and white I found them to be absolutely illegible.) Those days are over. As for book publishers, I've dealt with many of them, and I've also been on the editorial boards of a dozen scholarly journals. They have to pay real money for longer page counts; so they cut corners anywhere they can. For example, they very rarely use color photographs because of the expense. Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the length of the article is I would hope the quality of the article can get to FA status. My current view is that the article would be good between 130,000 to 150,000 bytes to get to FA status. Seperate articles on Grant's life are good for adding more details that are available in reliable sources. I am not against adding additional information as long as Grant can get to FA status. I don't think the article should be edited in smaller because content on his military career and presidency would be lost. I started the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article so more information and neutrality could be given for an understudied presidency. Possibly more information can add to the neutrality of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a compromise if one is needed: how about setting a 150,000 byte cap on the article until the article gets to FA status. I do believe who ever is responsible for granting the FA status of the article needs to state what size is best for the article if not already stated. I think there is concensus that the article will not be reduced anymore in size for content purposes. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FACR, particularly 4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Then please click on "summary style," and from there, on "Wikipedia:Article size," which has a "Readability issues" section and a size guideline rules of thumb. The FA reviewers apply these guidelines. Yo Pienso (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At 14,081 words (a more useful measurement than bytes) it is the longest FA or GA-class article about a president, and would be among the longest FAs on any topic. I don't want to cut any more, but I do think there's good reasons for keeping it as it is, especially when an increasingly large share of our audience accesses the encyclopedia on a mobile device, with the small screen size and data restrictions that entails. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

  • @Coemgenus: This is an encyclopedia, not some quick reference for mobile devices, and as such we should keep the standards at existing levels, not lowering them so kiddies and others can play with their smart toys. Anyone who's doing historical and scientific research, etc, usually isn't hopping about town and logging on to WP. If we were to begin catering to the smart toy crowd, we may as well start with deleting all the high res images and shrinking all the GA and FA articles so they look like outlines. A different topic. We were discussing brief mention of boarding school. Adding a sentence or two isn't going to make or break page length issues. If you also think this should be included, just do it -- no one is going to hollar 'page length' if you do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: -- You said you would not oppose adding info about Grant's educational involvements in Kentucky. bear in mind that Grant doesn't have to be a "theologian" to warrant mentioning this four year period of his life. Rjensen and myself also think this topic needs to be included. Yes, page length is a consideration -- but so is a well covered and comprehensive article. Leaving such a big gap in the narrative is sloppy editorship, and not consistent with the very fine job done covering the Civil War. Reading the Overland Campaign and victory section was an absolute pleasure -- well covered, good writing and comprehensive. We need to do the same for the entire article, regardless of page length. No, this doesn't mean we start dumping content into the narrative at every juncture, but we should at least include some of the major details still missing, not to mention an entire topic regarding Grant's first journey away from home in Kentucky. Leaving out an entire chapter of Grant's life because of a page length guideline is not acceptable. if we must we can always trim down the Later Reconstruction and civil rights, Foreign affairs and the Panic of 1873, the Long Depression, and currency debates sections -- they are all quite long, much longer than some of the sections covering Grant's involvements in Civil War battles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers:I don't understand you want to add to Grant's personal life but cut information on one of the most under studied Presidents in United States. The Presidency section looks fine and does not need any cutting. That would reduce content...I am not against adding information but oppose cutting information from the article...I proposed a cap of 150,000 words...That is called a compromise...That would be best for the article in my opinion... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: -- I'm for adding as much content as is practically possible. I thought by now that was sort of clear. I suggested trimming a few very long sections as a "compromise" with those who are reluctant to see this article grow another 'inch'. In any event, the biography is missing an entire chapter in Grant's life. Leaving the small town of Georgetown and arriving in Maysville on the Ohio River, a busy trading port with ships and riverboats coming and going, and then nearby Ripley, was the first real taste of the world Grant, beginning at age 13, had experienced. Coverage of this advent can be accomplished with two or three sentences without any appreciable concern for page length.
While we're at, in many if not all presidential biographies cover of family and ancestry is standard OP. This biography has (very) little to say about family and nothing to say about Grant's ancestors (beginning with Mathew Grant) who were Puritans and arrived from Plymouth, the descendants of whom fought in the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars. This also can be covered with a short passage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: I believe a biography article on Grant's family would be good...I am in favor of adding more information on Grant family history to the main article but limited compared to a potential full seperate article on Grant's family... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Grant Lede

The Ku Klux Klan is mentioned twice in the lead, while topics like Abraham Lincoln are mentioned once. The second mention of the klan is a detail already covered in the text. I'd recommend omitting the second instance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ! Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on Grant article and on talk page

Hi, Cmguy, I think you don't realize that you jeopardize the promotion of the article to FA when you keep making suggestions and trying to insert and/or delete material. I believe you want to see it promoted, so please, take a break now. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please. If you want this to pass, please relax and stop pushing for more changes. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a break, but seems unfair when other editors are allowed to edit and I am not...I can take a hint...good luck with your article... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not editing there until after the article passes--or fails--FA. And maybe not even then. Coemgenus, Wehwalt, and I have suggested that everyone--not just you--stand down for awhile. I still disagree with the addition of Grant's signing the Yellowstone bill, but I ain't touchin' it, or even mentioning it on the talk page. I came to your page for two reasons: 1. You didn't stop or agree to stop. 2. I didn't want to add more activity on the article talk page.
I'm not sure everyone understands that the article is supposed to be a cohesive summary that doesn't really include tangential facts. YoPienso (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am allowed to comment on my own talk page...the Reputation looks good...but to state "well below average" is counter intuative to the positive research of Brands and Smith...when encountering civil rights Grant is in the top ten in one historical poll...the readers don't understand most Presidential polls exclude civil rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Playing the victim doesn't help you or anybody else; of course you can comment on your own talk page. I assume I'm welcome; if not, please advise. You may certainly hide or delete my comments at will.
With a degree in history, you should be able to understand presidential rankings:
I do understand presidential rankings...they do not take into consideration the whole presidency...also concerning Grant...only one poll covered Civil Rights...Grant get's low rankings because Civil Rights is left out of the polls...also historians have stated Fish was one of the best Secretary of States in U.S. History...Grant gets know recognition... Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't put a lot of stock in many modern day assessments of U.S. Presidents. As with Jefferson, claims, often isolated and out of context, are often politically and/or socially driven. I think the only real fault we can hang on Grant is that he didn't have a tight enough grip on his subordinates -- the ones who were actually to blame for corruption or any other failures regarding the environment, etc. Environmental assessments made today are obviously presentist in nature, as the country was still caught up in the wake of the Civil War and priority was given to not only reconstruction but to building a country where citizens had a chance to prosper. As I said before, there is one assessment, Waugh's, of Grant regarding the environment. This opens the door to a balancing statement if there are any, and it seems there are. I haven't researched that topic much, so let's see what we can come up with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Gwillhickers that Grant held onto or trusted his subordinates to a fault...but Presidents by their nature are protective of their appointees because quickly getting rid of subordinates would be an admittance of fault in selecting them as appointments and additionally no one would want to serve a President knowing they could get removed without notice...That indeed was Grant's real fault...he was always suspicious of reformers and too trusting of his suborniates caught in scandal...His cabinet was extremely underpaid only $8,000 a year, not enough to live in Washington D.C. during the Gilded Age...and I believe this is why they were prone to steal or take advantage of rings that brought them money to support their wives and families... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special thanks

The Teamwork Barnstar
Congratulations to Coemgenus and Cmguy777 for their extended and arduous efforts in bringing the Ulysses S. Grant biography to Featured Article status.
Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

president and slavery
Thank you for your interest in the "Founders of the United States" and "all U.S. Presidential biographical articles", for quality articles such as Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant and Thomas Jefferson and slavery, beginning here with improvement of George Washington and slavery, for collaboration and trying to "work out any disagreements and to find consensus", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks Gerda Arendt ! I appreciate that gem award ! All of the above article are important to me and I believe better understanding of the Founders and Presidents leads to greater appreciation for them... Cmguy777 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1177 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated @Gerda Arendt: ! Cmguy777 (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gerda Arendt: I have enjoyed working on the Wikipedia presidency articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and four! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Gerda Arendt: Cmguy777 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and five - Music on my talk, listen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ulysses S. Grant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ulysses S. Grant, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Congrats!!

Super Mediation Participant Award
Thank you for your dedication, patience and flexibility at mediation. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Credit Mobilier Senator Wilson]</ref> Wilson said he purchased $2,000 (<i>$30,300 in 2014</i>)<ref>[http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ Money Worth (2015)</ref> worth of Crédit Mobilier stock

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Wilson page additions

I just want to say "nice work" on the updates to the Henry Wilson page. I've made some edits for conciseness and clarity, but your content and references are a definite improvement. I've also started to add additional bio details and references. If you see anything that I've missed or gotten wrong, please feel free to help me make improvements.

Billmckern (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern:...Your editing has really helped the article also. Henry Wilson is an interesting person. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmguy777: -- Continued good work on the Henry Wilson page. This article is really starting to take shape.
Billmckern (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Billmckern: Yes. Thanks for your efforts too in making the Henry Wilson article "take shape". Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson

Hi! I'm coming here to explain why I'm leaving the article. I was dismayed to read your comment, "I do not know yet why West Point was deleted from the article." Your failure to understand discussions is one of my big frustrations at Thomas Jefferson.

Gwillhickers inserted West Point into the article on 12 Nov.

We discussed it at length in early-mid December. The conclusion of that discussion was to leave it out: "We should get this settled once and for all." We all voted now let's move on. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere in there I removed it, and I realize now I was mixed up on whether it was in the lead or the body. That didn't help.

Then on the current talk page we discussed it to death.

Most of us found West Point was too small a detail to include in the general bio of TJ. That's why I removed it. Dcpoliticaljunkie has restored it.

I appreciate that you consistently edit in good faith and are civil. What's difficult for me in trying to work with you is that,like in this case, you don't understand much of what the rest of us say. I hope you take the time to carefully read what others post in the coming days. Read carefully so you understand what they say; read thoughtfully so you understand what they mean.

Very best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YoPienso First I don't believe there is a need for you to leave the Thomas Jefferson article or discussion. Second editors did not want West Point mentioned in the Thomas Jefferson lede. As far as I know there was no discussion of deleting or keeping West Point from the article. Third. I did not put West Point in the lede section and followed editor consensus. I put West Point in the Presidency section and Rjensen edited on the Cmguy's initial edit. I took that to mean inclusion by Rjensen in the Presidency section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you, I think we could be onto something in terms of extracting ourselves from all the unproductive back and forth on topics like WP. Of course the WP info is not trivia., though as you know we are on different sides of this. You have lots of support I know. Please join me in an effort that we each continue to appeal to our "better angels" if you will, so we can harness the consensus we need on all these topics. We have to be willing to risk the result but we are getting nowhere the way we've been going. Thanks again and Happy New Year. Hoppyh (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Dolson Cox

Thanks for your contributions.

You added the following references in the text

{{sfn|McFeely 1981|pp=336–338}} , {{sfn|Smith|pp=500–502}} and {{sfn|Brands 2012a|pp=455–456}}

but there are no corresponding references under ==References==

-Yours Roseohioresident (talk)

The article is currently under reconstruction. A sources section needs to be added. An sfnRef should be adopted. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whiskey Ring 03.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whiskey Ring 03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whiskey Ring.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whiskey Ring.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Jefferson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • during his lifetime.<ref>[[#Alexander10|Alexander, 2010]]; [[#Davis99|Davis, 1999]], p. 179; [[#[[#Finkelman1994|Finkelman (1994)]], p. 215</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former certified teacher

Hey, as a fellow certified teacher, I would just like to point out, that to say that most Virginia whites opposed abolition of slavery at all times throughout history ignores the “war of brothers” in Virginia — the vote to secede in the Virginia convention was 88 to 55 on a state SENATE apportioned basis, favoring slave power eastern counties by a factor of three, it ignores the effort at gradual emancipation in the Virginia Convention of 1776 in place (George Wythe) and 1829-30 to African freedom (Thomas Jefferson Randolph). It just feeds into the Lost Cause mythology that you can’t be opposed to slavery and be a true Virginian. I chose to identify with George Wythe, Jefferson’s law professor. Virginia historian Hugh Blair Grigsby estimated that the malapportionment favoring the Tidewater tobacco counties in 1776 made it possible for the planter party to maintain slavery in Virginia in the face of opposition from the pro-revolution lawyer party (George Mason, George Wythe) and from the radical party (Patrick Henry and the interior counties). Missed opportunity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheVirginiaHistorian: I never stated "most Virginia whites opposed abolition of slavery". Thomas and Scott were both Virginians and remained loyal to the Union. There were many Baptists and Methodists who opposed slavery and supported African equality in churches during Jefferson's times. The question is whether Jefferson supported or condemned slavery. Possibly both is true. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You may enjoy the gallery I contributed expanding the Union Virginians (not mentioning West Virginians) and civilian Confederate and Union leaders at Virginia in the American Civil War. Even included a woman spy for each...
Yes, Jefferson condemned slavery for the individual, and sought individual liberty for the slave. At the same time he reconciled himself to Virginia as a slave society (versus a society with slaves in Ira Berlin's analysis). I read in Susan Dunn's "Dominion of Memories" that Jefferson by the 1800s wanted help from Northern states via the federal government in abolishing slavery to compensate owners, educate and train freedmen, and for colonization, but only when each slave-holding state determined it would seek such help for itself. Paid for out of land sales of territory donated to the U.S. by Virginia in the Northwest Territory.
States rights always foremost, the once free-thinking Jefferson made that principle a condition of employment in "our own" University of Virginia faculty, leading its law professor George Tucker to move to the "freer intellectual air" of Philadelphia. I merely wanted to point out that Jefferson's efforts to expand suffrage for the majority of white men, who in fact lived west of the Blue Ridge Mountains, implied strengthening the abolition vote in Virginia, and far from being a secret subterfuge, this fact was loudly and repeatedly protested by the eastern delegates in both Virginia Constitutional Conventions of 1829-30 and 1850-51. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any assistance please?

I thought since you edit the JFK article maybe able to assist me with this article: The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union it is being put up for speedy deletion for copyright violations. I have never had to deal with this before.

Any help would be most helpful. Thank you!! Moscowamerican (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moscowamerican. I do not have the book. I don't have enough information to edit on the article. Maybe you can check for book reviews on the New York Times website. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William W. Belknap may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • place under five cabinet secretaries. Four under President Grant: Belknap, [[George M. Robeson]] (ad interum}, [[Alphonso Taft]], and [[J. Donald Cameron]], and one under President [[Rutherford B. Hayes]]: [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style for Thomas Jefferson Foundation in Thomas Jefferson article

I want to adjust some of the Foundation references to directly point to the actual webpages that are being cited but am not familiar with this anchored referencing style. Adding exact links to the cited TJF information, as you did for "Thomas Jefferson and Slavery" would seem to be a better way of delineating verifiability for WP's readers. I'm a somewhat experienced Wikipedian and find the direct linkage more useful (rather than having a single link for 31 different TJF articles and then adding in additional search instructions for each individual article). If you could point me to the WP pages (Templates, MOS, Help pages, etc., etc) that would be a big help - I can't quite figure out what this referencing style might be called "according to WP". Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shearonink. I believe the best option is to have a direct link to an article. I am working on another article right now. TJF I believe has information directly on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. I would use that instead of the search link as a reference. I am not sure what you are asking. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Like you did on the reference I mentioned above.
Here is what I am asking about...
Look at all the links in the Thomas Jefferson article that lead to the one single #TJF web reference - there are at least 31 different #TJF references that, instead of leading to the actual article on the Foundation's website, lead to the main page and from there, readers are expected to put in the title of the article, and from that website's search results have to click on the appropriate article.
For instance, <ref name=House>[[#TJF|TJF: Monticello, the House]]</ref> which is Reference 22, doesn't lead to the direct URL. Instead it leads to "TJF:Monticello, the House" which then leads to (under "Website sources") the general website source of "Thomas Jefferson Foundation". Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Retrieved January 30, 2016. (Type in title name in TJF search window to access source) which then leads to the actual URL: https://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens/monticello-house . Now this might not be a problem except that, for instance, Reference 235<ref>[[#TJF|Thomas Jefferson Foundation: "Sale of Monticello"]]</ref> leads to "Thomas Jefferson Foundation: "Sale of Monticello" which, then(like the other 29 #TJF references) also leads to (under "Website sources") "Thomas Jefferson Foundation". Thomas Jefferson Foundation. Retrieved January 30, 2016. (Type in title name in TJF search window to access source) which the reader then has to put in ""Sale of Monticello" at monticello.org which then leads to a page of search results which the reader finally has to click on "Sale of Monticello" to get to the actual article https://www.monticello.org/site/house-and-gardens/sale-monticello about the sale of Monticello.
So. I am thinking many readers would find this drawn-out search somewhat cumbersome so I want to start putting in some direct links to the actual TJF articles. The problem is that I am not at all familiar with this anchored/hashtagged/internally-linked/whatever it's called type of referencing. I generally use Cite web & book & so on...even (woo-hoo) occasionally branch out to Sfn etc. Can you point me to the pages that lay out how to do this # style of referencing? I've never seen it before and need to see a Help or MOS on how to do it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this matter would be best to discuss in the Jefferson talk page. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Was just asking about how to do the # referencing since you put in that one reference. Thanks anyway. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know

I adjusted a post of yours at the Talk:TJ page to include "nowiki" because the "ref" mention was messing up my subsequent post and I didn't know how else to fix it. Hope that's alright - if you can figure out how to adjust things otherwise, feel free to go ahead. Shearonink (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing the Thomas Jefferson article it appears that any TJF reference should be changed to an actual Thomas Jefferson Foundation URL link rather then the URL search page. Addition web sources would be need to put into the article to delete the TJF search link references. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is what I am doing. Having a search for the search at the target website just seemed too cumbersome to me and ultimately not as user-friendly as I would like. Adjusting the linkage/references for all of them (I think it's about 26 or 27 at this point?) will take me a while since I am not very familiar with the generic Harvard-style or this particular variant. Shearonink (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Columbus Delano page

I wanted to compliment you on your work here. You've synthesized a lot of useful information and turned it into a coherent narrative. The narrative gets more concise and precise with subsequent edits. I hope my assistance is helpful, but I have to say that you're definitely closing in on a first-rate finished product. Good work.

Billmckern (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern: Thanks. I thought there had to be more to Delano then corruption. He was kind of the last "old school" spoilsman Interior Secretaries. I started working on the article to expand information on the corruption charges, but found there were other issues that Delano covered. I appreciate all your edits I find to be extremely valuable to the article. I thought by adding information on Yellowstone would add neutrality. Not everthing was corrupt and Delano actually gave Grant good advice. Your edits are helping get Delano more readers and continued editing is much appreciated. Understanding Delano might give the reader better understanding into the Grant Administration. Hopefully Columbus Delano can get to GA and FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cmguy777. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jedediah Smith and William Clark

I've been working with the Jedediah Smith Society on a mapping project for their website, and I keep coming back to some of your recent edits connecting Smith to William Clark.

Tradition has it that Smith's Southwest Expeditions were undertaken to 1) Look for the legendary Buenaventura River, 2) Look for new Beaver Territory, or both. But didn't you say somewhere that maybe Smith was encouraged by Clark to go to California to spy on the Mexicans? Is that in the Buckley Book? Because the more I think about it, the more that makes sense. Smith was in St. Louis in the Fall of 1825, and may very well have planned the trip with Clark.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my source said that Clark authorized the first expedition of the Ashley 100. I don't know if Smith was instructed by Clark to to spy on the Mexicans. I believe Clark and Smith kept in contact with each other. I don't know their correspondance. Smith spying on the Mexicans is only speculation on my part. Wikipedia has to to by what the sources say. Clark was only indirectly involved in Smith's journies into the West. Smith was suspected to be a spy by the Mexicans, but in fact was he ? That I don't know. I believe Clark is only mentioned as authorizing the Ashely 100 expedition and that the Lewis and Clark expedition somehow influenced Smith to join the Ashely 100 Missouri expedition. I don't know who added this to my talk page. The above statements are unsigned. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. That was me. Wonder why it didn't auto-sign. Anyway, I think you're on to something. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sign in. Yes. Maybe onto something. There would need to be some reliable source that says Smith was spying on the Mexicans before mentioning in the article. As of this time I have not found any yet. Until that time it is only speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Write your own "reliable source". I could give you a lot of arguments that support that idea, and I bet the Jedediah Smith Society would publish it their newsletter. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can find for now is that the Mexican Governor suspected Smith of spying and had his me arrested. I can't do any original research. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benjamin Harrison Memorial Statue.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Benjamin Harrison Memorial Statue.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creswell

Hello,

I read your edits to the "Historical Reputation" section of John A.J. Creswell's page, and since you based this information almost entirely off my book, I would like to offer some suggestions:

"Historians have generally forgotten, or have been inconsistent and incorrect concerning Creswell,"

While it is true that the entire premise of our book is to resurrect Creswell's reputation as an abolitionist, we did not claim that historians have been inconsistent and incorrect concerning Creswell generally, merely that his name has been recorded inconsistently and incorrectly. This should be restated for clarity or, better, removed, since I explained the discrepancies in footnote 1.

"The mistake in his name probably came when his personal papers were added to the Library of Congress at the end of the Nineteenth Century. [15]"

Our statement on this issue is as follows: that the mistake "…seems to have originated in the late nineteenth century, possibly when his papers were processed by the Library of Congress."

I'd appreciate it if you would re-state your claim as written. I was able to find only circumstantial evidence to pin the problem on the LoC and thus we only conjecture that the mistake was made and proliferated by them. I had many conversations with librarians at the Library of Congress about this issue and they will neither claim nor admit responsibility, nor are they willing to change their records despite the evidence I provided them.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.63.33 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the author input. I made necessary changes to the article per your suggestions and discussion. I added clarification on Creswell's historical reputation. I appreciate your review of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on Creswell

Thank you for the edits you made to the Creswell article. Here are some additional observations. Regarding this quote:

Historians John M. Osborne and Christine Bombaro said while "serving as a Postmaster General during the Grant Administration, Creswell helped to integrate and modernize the federal post office system. He had truly become a man of the future."

Professor Osborne and I did not write that. Those sentences are from my book's preface, which was written by Professor Matthew Pinsker.

In regard to: "Creswell did write a brief and incomplete biographical outline of his life in November 1863, but no autobiography, diary, or memoirs."

Again, we do not say that he never wrote an autobiography, diary or memoir, but that if any such thing existed, we were unable to find it.

Also near the end of the entry, "frinking" should be "franking."

I'm sorry to be so picky about this, but I have spent my career teaching writing, research methodology and appropriate attribution. I also spent about 6 years researching and writing the Creswell story and I would like the work to be represented accurately. I do appreciate that you've read it and are citing it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.143.90 (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to the article. I appreciate all your observations. I want the article to be correct and accurate. Rather then paraphrase quotes, I believe it is best to make direct quotes to prevent misunderstandings. You are right about Creswell being forgotten, and I think the positive policies of Ulysses S. Grant as President have been forgotten. There seems to be a revival of Grant era history. Smith, Brands, and White have taken a renewed interest in Grant's life and presidency. Your biography on Creswell gives valuable insight into Creswell as a civil rights advocate for African American men and women. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cmguy777. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tenure of Office Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Wroblewitz

Help expand this article. Thank you!115.76.247.73 (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May you help.171.245.241.212 (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help on this article. I do not have any information or sources on Maureen Wroblewits. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (John C. Frémont botanical nomenclature eponyms) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating John C. Frémont botanical nomenclature eponyms, Cmguy777!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

When you copied some passages from the article John C. Frémont, you should have provided attreibution by mentioning it in the edit summary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I readded the plant information and attributed it to the John C. Frémont article in the edit summary. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacob Dolson Cox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Francis Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit stays uncontroversial with better summaries

I was surprised by this edit as I am sensitive to all the political/religious/etc warring around here. I went looking around and found the note at top of Template:Infobox officeholder and then the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_21#Religion_in_officeholder_infoboxes.

Perhaps to forestall concerns, instead of just "Infobox fix", your summary could say something like "Infobox param removal per RFC" or even just "per RFC" which would clue people into the context. Shenme (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_8quyxEFRh2tgJ4F&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

...to see what PCH is probably going to be proposing for the Washington article you might be interested in taking a look at one of his sandboxes. Shearonink (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shearonick. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Post-presidency of George Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revolutionary War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-presidency of George Washington

Hey, not to alarm you, but my attention was drawn via email to some apparent copyvio / close plagiarizing issues at the above-noted article. I had a look though with the assistance of TonyBallioni (courtesy ping), and we found several instances of what appeared to be either complete phrases lifted from the sources [1] and [2], or close paraphrases of wording from the same articles. Tony has removed some and revdel'd the history, but I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on what's going on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No plagiarism. Everything has been referenced using multiple sources. I am not taking credit for what other people have authored. The medical information from American Heritage was used close to the source and quoted because it was written by an MD. I did not want to misrepresent the medical information. That is why I put in in quotes. I am not an MD. It was only my intension to represent the sources as accurately as possible in good faith, particularly the medical information that has been quoted. I can look through the article to make changes in places that have been referenced by the above sources provided. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may want to refresh your reading of WP:PLAGIARISM. I don't mean that in a snarky way, but placing a citation after an unquoted quote or a close paraphrase isn't enough to avoid concerns about plagiarism/inappropriate copying. There are numerous instances in the article of phrasing that's completely lifted from the sources, or only marginally altered.
Here's a couple of paragraphs I pulled using Earwig's copyvio detector, compared to the source at [americanheritage.com/index.php/content/medical-profile-george-washington American Heritage]. In many cases you have used the exact same wording, even when it's unusual or archaic. Other times, you have substituted synonyms (loathsome vs. horrible) but left the sentence structure intact. In almost every case, when there's a phrase match, the entire sentence structure of the paragraph is the same, or perhaps two sentences have been combined into one (but the clauses remain in the same order).
Your version Source version
On December 12, 1799, as was his custom, Washington rode his horse supervising his farms from 10:00 AM to 3:00 P.M. The weather was severe that included rain, hail, and snow alternately falling, all driven by an icy wind. Washington was known to be very punctual in all his duties, including his meal hour attendance. However, on this day, Washington was late for dinner, that was served promptly at 3:00 P.M. The meal had already been set on the table when he entered his Mount Vernon mansion. Washington's devoted friend and secretary, Colonel Lear, noticed Washington's neck appeared wet and snow was sticking to his hair. Rather than change his clothes, Washington sat down to dinner. On the day of December 12, 1799, as was his custom, Washington was riding about his farm from 10 A.M. until 3 P.M. The weather on this day was bad; rain, hail and snow falling alternately, driven by an icy wind. Washington was a stickler for punctuality in all his activities, including his meal hours. On this December day in 1799, Washington was late for dinner.Served promptly at three o’clock, the meal was on the table when he entered the house. Colonel Lear, his faithful friend and secretary, observed that the neck of the general appeared wet and that snow was sticking to his hair, but Washington refused to change his clothes and sat down to the dinner.
The next day, December 13, Washington awoke to a cold and sore throat, and did not go outside in the morning. Despite the bitter cold weather, Washington went out in the afternoon to mark trees for pruning. The next day he complained of a cold and sore throat and did not go out as usual in the morning. In spite of his cold he went outside in the afternoon to mark some trees which he wanted cut down.
Martha begged him to awaken servants to make a home remedy, but Washington refused, out of fear she herself would catch a cold. Martha begged him to let her awaken the servants and fetch him a home remedy. But Washington sternly refused to let her get up for fear she, too, would catch a cold.
At daybreak a servant made a fire, followed by Colonel Lear, who when he arrived, found that Washington could not speak or even make a sound. A horrible mixture of molasses, vinegar, and butter were offered to Washington, but his attempt to swallow the remedy caused him to cough convulsively and almost suffocate. Washington then instructed his overseer Rawlins to bleed him. At daybreak a servant came and lighted the fire. Soon Colonel Lear arrived and found the general voiceless, hardly able to utter an audible sound. A loathsome mixture of molasses, vinegar and butter was offered to Washington but he could not swallow a drop. As he tried harder to get it down, he started to cough convulsively, and almost suffocated. Rawlins, the overseer of the farm, was sent for with Washington’s request to bleed him.
Rawlins obeyed and took a pint of blood from Washington, but there was no throat relief. Lear next applied a "sal volatile" mentol-vapor rub to Washington's throat, but Washington complained his throat was sore. A piece of flannel with a terrible-smelling salve was wrapped around Washington's neck, and his feet was bathed in warm water, all to no avail. Washington elevated himself about 8:00 AM for two hours, but no relief could be found from his changed position. He took a pint of blood from Washington, but there was no relief. Colonel Lear next applied “sal volatile,” the menthol-vapor rub of the time, to the throat of the sick man, rubbing it gently with his hand, upon which the patient complained that his throat was very sore. A piece of flannel saturated with the same evil-smelling salve was wound around his neck, and the feet bathed in warm water, all to no avail.
This is just what I grabbed in a quick five-minute look, but there's more in there; enough to be seriously concerning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know where this is going. I fully credited the sources. Quoting is not plagiarism. Pull the article or delete it. What are your intentions for me as an editor ? I will remove all the information from both sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed content has been removed. It is no longer in the article. Lead section has been left in tact. All sources have been fully credited. I am not an attorney. This article can always be rewritten. Now sentence structures are in dispute. I don't have to defend myself. The article needs to be taken as a whole, not just specific sections. There is no need for further inquiry. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have upset you, and I'm not trying to make trouble for you, but this kind of thing is a problem for Wikipedia and must be taken seriously when it's found. It is very worrying to me as an editor that you are denying there's any issue with the text comparison above. When laid out side by side like that, it is clear that there is significant copying and close paraphrasing going on. The paragraphs are nearly identical in wording, sequence, and structure with only slight alterations, and as I said earlier that was not the only instance of that in the article.
You state that "quoting is not plagiarism", which is correct. However, I deliberately avoided comparing any text from your version that was correctly formatted as a quotation (quotation marks and a citation), which in fairness to you was done in various places throughout the article. My concern is the large portions which are presented outside of quotation marks ostensibly as your own words, when they are clearly (when compared side by side above) barely your own words at all.
That is extremely close paraphrasing, which is borderline plagiarism. There's almost no other way to see it. I drew it to your attention in the first place to see if there was any other reasonable explanation - perhaps you had a release for the text that I hadn't seen, or it was actually PD and I was misreading things. But it looks as though that isn't the case. Again, I'll reiterate I'm not trying to make trouble for you. I don't know you or even know of you; I have no reason to do that. My concern is for the integrity of the encyclopedia.
I'm sorry to see the amount of text that's had to be removed from the article, but I appreciate you taking the trouble to clean it up. I'm going to revdel the last couple of revisions before the removal just to complete the removal of the issues from the history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article was dedicated to George Washington's post presidency. The sources and references used were to create an original article for Wikipedia titled Post-presidency of George Washington. The article should be taken as a whole, broken up into sections. I have taken no credit for the information on the article, but have used solid referencing and sourcing. I have not claimed the information in this article was my own work. The contention in dispute is in the wording. Multiple sources were used in this article not one or two. Paraphrasing is an art. One does not want to loose content of the sources and should be represented as accurately as possible. That is what I was doing, especially in the medical terminology. You can't paraphrase the word tracheotomy or other medical procedures that were performed on George Washington. You can't paraphrase the time of day or the date of an event. I quoted Marx and Abbot when necessary. The fact that the two sources in dispute were readily available and could be seen online to ensure reliability meant that I in no way was attempting to take credit for the information found in those sources. I was not "lifting words" and taking credit for it. I used only information that was needed in the article from the two sources. Maybe this article could be rewritten better. I am not saying this was a perfect article, but the article was original and all sources should be taken into consideration. Again, the disputed information was deleted from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see the forest for the trees here, I am genuinely concerned. I cannot possibly fathom how you could claim that the text in contention here was original. Look at the paragraphs in the table I posted. Really actually look at them and compare them to each other, please. The words are the same, with minor tweaks. The order of sentences is the same, with minor tweaks. The structure of the sentences is the same, with minor tweaks. Even if you cited where you copied and altered from, that is still a case of copying and altering. That is not how you write original encyclopedic content. It's plagiarism, and the fact that you can't acknowledge that something is wrong with the text as you placed it in the article is worrying. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not plagiarism because I never took credit for Marx's or Abbot's work. Plagiarism is taking credit for other people's works. I never did so. The article was original, not the text. Mark was a medical source used to describe the horrible care Washington received by his doctors. And you can't paraphrase medical terminology. I did read what you posted. You are not looking at the article as a whole. Could those sections have been written better that you posted. Yes. Could they have been paraphrase using less words from the author? Yes. You point has been made and duly noted. The disputed sections have been deleted. There is no need to keep badgering me or forcing me to admit fault under duress. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made efforts to clean up this article. I don't like being accused of a crime. I understand that quoting too much is not good, nor lack of paraphrasing is good either. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not at any point accused you of "a crime". As I have stated more than once, I have zero interest in getting you in trouble, and I think the fact that I have never so much as mentioned anything about consequences or sanctions or what have you in this conversation bears that out. My concern this entire time has been for the integrity of the encyclopedia, particularly on an article about a high-profile historical figure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candor PMC. I understand that over quoting, and/or cutting and pasting from a web page, and/or inserting word for word from a book, even though both are sourced, and/or changing a few words in the narration, is sloppy editing practice. "Plagerism" and "copyright infringement" are legal terms that I am more informed of and careful to avoid. I also endevour to represent the source the best way I can in the narration with out inserting my own opinion in the article. My purpose for this article was to give better understanding on George Washington's abolition will, the Quasi-War, and his sudden illness and death, and the medical treatment Washington received from his doctors. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawrence Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington...

Broken ref... Shearonink (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pittsburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masonry in the late 18th century

I won't revert again if you change it back, but as I read it, the emphasis is that in the late 18th century in America, Masonry was considered socially acceptable. In the early 19th century, though, the Morgan Affair caused a backlash that almost wiped out the fraternity in the US, before it rebuilt to its previous levels. Where/when it was founded is more a question for the Freemasonry article - the Washington article doesn't need to touch on it, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masonry was socially acceptable from the ealry 1700s to probably about the 1820s. It was afterwards linked to satan worship and mormonism. It was toward the end of Washington's presidency or his retirement that his faith was questioned, i.e. was he an "infidel" because he refused to take communion. Washington not taking communion was more controversial than his membership as a Mason. It was founded in London in 1717. I am not sure why that information is in dispute. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Grand Lodge of England was formed on that date, from existing lodges joining together. See Freemasonry#Origins for why using that date is iffy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That George Washington "cite needed" in Foreign affairs section

You added the phrase "Two days before Washington's term ended, the French withdrew from their embassy in America." to George Washington with this edit on July 23rd. I've tried to find a source and have been unsuccessful - do you by any chance have a reference for the statement? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source/reference: Akers, Charles W. (2002). "John Adams". In Graff, Henry (ed.). The Presidents: A Reference History (7th ed.). Scribner. pp. 23–38. ISBN 978-0-684-80551-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cmguy777. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cmguy777. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The waiting is the hardest part...

The waiting is the hardest part... I think we've taken care of all the issues the various reviewers have brought up, so now we get to hurry up and wait. Hard to do but I'm not editing the article unless a reviewer mentions some revision they think we should do to improve it.... Shearonink (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there will be a full FA review. Technical issues have been addressed. We need content review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Washington

The Writer's Barnstar
Fantastic work on improving and expanding George Washington. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: Thanks for the award ! Cmguy777 (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shearonink CHEERS !

From G. Washington talk page

We have worked together for many years, and have had more than our fair share of heated discussions, yet we have accomplished much and ironed out many issues, in spite of ourselves. I take no pleasure in our heated Talk, and log out with a diminished feeling of what we are accomplishing. Though I disagree with some of your opinions I still recognize a tireless contributor when I see one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gwillhickers:. I have no anymosity towards you are any other editors. I have said my only POV is to get Washington to FA. I don't agree with everything edited in Washington. I just believe in letting editors have a go at the article. Someone like Coemgenus or Dilidor are better editors, concerning narration, than myself. You are a valued editor of Washington and your contributions are much appreciated and insightful. I apologize for anything said that could be considered insentive or unnecessary on my part. I appreciate the your kind words in the talk page. Washington should have the best narration, content, and neutrality. In America we are taught about Washington day one. In other countries like Canada and England, Washington apparently is not mentioned very much or studied. That is sad. That is the importance of this FA nomination. Washington could have millions of viewers on FA. I don't want any more "heated discussions." I don't want strike three for the next FA. Let's give Washington a home run. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington referencing funfunfun

With this edit you removed the Delbanco 1999 Sfnm ref which in turn caused a Harvard warning because the Cite book ref for Delbanco was sitting in the references section with nothing to connect to in the text. I have removed the Delbanco reference for you. Please check for Harv errors or warnings in the text (before you hit "Publish changes") in the George Washington article when you have removed Sfnm refs or when you've added references etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kept references [1] Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I readded [2] Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When making any edits I try to keep the original references. I missed the Delbanco 1999 reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am enjoying our conversation on the GW talk page re: Lurie & the MVLA website etc.. Nice to actually discuss things there. Shearonink (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chernow 2010, pp. 813–814; Levy 2013, p. 22; Weems 1918.
  2. ^ Delbanco 1999.

George Washington

In this recent edit you added the following Sfn reference - {{sfn|Cresswell (2010) p 222}} - without adding a complete cite book/etc reference to the Bibliography section. I would have fixed it but I am not familiar with Cresswell/2010 - if you could do so that would be awesome/helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also...I think the form might be slightly wrong? Is it supposed to be {{sfn|Cresswell|2010|p=222}} ? Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the book source here: [3]. Apparently that source was deleted. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Charles E. Sawyer (1920).jpg

Notice

The file File:Charles E. Sawyer (1920).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles E. Sawyer (1920).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Charles E. Sawyer (1920).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Madison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montpelier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Columbus Delano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Interior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jedediah Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing cite in Hamilton Fish

Hi, you have added a ref to "Calhoun 2017" but no such work is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Source has been added to the Hamilton Fish article from the Ulysses S. Grant article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Information icon Hello. In a recent edit to the page George III, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was different about the language version I made? Cmguy777 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Whiskey Ring (1871-1875).jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Whiskey Ring (1871-1875).jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiberius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Debauchery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Longstreet FAC

Hello. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Longstreet/archive1 is in need of additional reviewers. It has passed its image and source reviews, and received five full general reviews. The general reviews ended in three supports, and two cases of the reviewer declining to support or oppose. Another "quick review" ended with the reviewer not taking a position. Probably for this reason, the coordinators have not yet promoted the article. I think that an additional general review would help. If you are interested, please take a look. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you thought that I meant don't do a review but instead make numerous edits to the article yourself, with a few of them being good edits but most of them totally unnecessary and unhelpful, please forget I asked. Display name 99 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes to get the article passed. Bloated paragraphs. Lack of title sections. My edits were in good faith. I tried to make the article better. The narration is fine. You asked me for a review. My edits were helpful. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat indifferent on whether "Postbellum life" needed sub-sections. But the sub-section titles that you added were factually inaccurate and not well-reflective of the content inside of them. Elsewhere, you made some good edits, but they were overshadowed by numerous bad ones: unnecessary changes to grammar, adding manual px to captions in violation of Wikipedia policy (something that I already had to fix during the FA review), changing the wording in sentences in ways that made no sense, adding unnecessary links, and inserting images unnecessarily. Were your edits in good faith? Maybe. Were they helpful? No. Display name 99 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Grammarly editing program to edit the article. The Postbellum period section needed breaks. It read like a book, not an article. But you wanted me to review a "perfect" article that needed no changes? Then you blame me for making changes. Since when is manual px a violation of Wikipedia policy? I made no major changes to the article narration. The subsection titles I added reflected the article's narration. I want James Longstreet to get a featured article. I have worked on the Grant article get to featured article status. I was simply trying to make the article mainstream, nationally based, not on just a Southern point of view. Maybe Longstreet was pro-North during Reconstruction because he was related to Grant, who was President of the United States. Maybe Longstreet wanted his citizenship back. The term "Postbellum" is a bit antiquated. This is 2021. Most historians call that period the Reconstruction Era, not Postbellum. I thought the portrait of Longstreet on a horse at Gettysburg really added to the article. I would keep the three latter sections and drop the term "Postbellum". You kept the Reconstruction Era section. That was good. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the article was perfect, but you made it worse. For px, see WP:IMAGESIZE. We cannot change title of the "Postbellum life" section to "Reconstruction," if that's what you want. Reconstruction ended in 1877. Longstreet died in 1904. I thought that the portrait of Longstreet at Gettysburg was fine, so I left it alone. A portrait of Grant however, in an article about Longstreet, does not add to the article. I don't know what I am supposed to do with the suggestions that you made about why Longstreet might have supported Reconstruction. You provided no source for either statement of speculation and it's not clear what action you want me to take. You said that you wanted to make the article "mainstream, nationally based, not on just a Southern point of view." What are you talking about? You left no indication anywhere else that you felt that the article had too much of a Southern perspective, and you have done nothing now to clarify what this means. It's clear that I made a mistake asking you to help, so let's move on. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to leave a few suggestions on the Featured article section. You can keep "Postbellum life", but the Reconstruction era section should remain. The way it is set up now with three sections is good. There is a photo of Longstreet after the war in the war section. I would remove that. I would also add war pictures, not just maps. Those may be found in the designated article. Why did Longstreet go pro-North? I don't know, but is that really answered in the article. I was just speculating on my own talk page. I think the reader would like to know why Longstreet went pro-North. We can move on, but I feel my suggestions would help get Longstreet to FA. Mainstream just means all readers will be interested in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to break down "Postbellum life" into two sections. The first is "Reconstruction era." For the second, I combined the latter two smaller subsections into one section entitled "Later life." The word postbellum is no longer used. I think that this is an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine by me. Reconstruction has more of an academic ring and looks better. I wanted to leave a few comments on the Featured article section. I would incorporate portraits of battles into the battles sections, not just have maps. There is no need for two after the Civil War photos. The one in the Civil War section could be removed. Various questions the reader could ask: Did Longstreet own slaves? Why did he switch to the North? Did being an in-law to Grant play a factor? Did he ever visit the White House and meet Julia? Overall the article is narrated well. What stands out in the article is that Longstreet was a born Southerner and he sided with the north during Reconstruction. He was not part of the Cult of Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Portraits look nicer but battles teach the reader more. We could afford to do away with one of the photographs from immediately after the Civil War, but I don't see any harm in keeping both. There is no historical record of Longstreet owning slaves. The Reconstruction section explains why he allied with the North during Reconstruction, but he didn't see it as "switching" to the North. He felt that Southern acceptance of Reconstruction was the best thing for the South and would help keep Southern whites from being completely overtaken by Northern whites and Southern blacks, which he felt would happen if they were completely against Reconstruction. There doesn't seem to be a huge indication of his connection to Grant being a factor. It certainly could have been. But it's not in the sources. Display name 99 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longstreet owned slaves. Did he have a small plantation? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No he did not own slaves, and no he did not own a small plantation. If either of these things were true, they'd be in the article. Please find sources if you wish to continue the discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This source says Longstreet owned slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Longstreet, James (1821–1904) Encyclopedia Virginia Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
His father had a cotton plantation with slaves in the northeastern Georgia town of Piedmont. It seems obvious Longstreet inherited slaves from his father. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
James Longstreet Encyclopedia.com Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it "seems obvious" doesn't mean he did, especially because he was mostly raised by his aunt and uncle. Don't just cite Internet articles. Find a book. None that I have encountered says that he did. I think I'm done here. Display name 99 (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marching Masters: Slavery, Race, and the Confederate Army during the Civil War (A Nation Divided: Studies in the Civil War Era) This book might help. I don't have a copy of it. But it does mention Longstreet opposed blacks in the Confederate military. I don't see why the Encyclopedia Virginia or Encyclopedia.com is lying. The Encyclopedia Virginia said Longstreet owned slaves. There should be some section on slavery and Longstreet, in my opinion. I don't see how you can say Longstreet did not own slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This site says Longstreet's father and mother owned a cotton plantation in northeast Georgia: James Longstreet 1821-1904 New Georgia Encyclopedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that Longstreet never owned slaves because not a single biography of him that I have read mentions it. And yes, I've checked. The Encyclopedia Virginia is the only source that you've given me which says he owned slaves. If you've been editing Wikipedia for this many years and you don't realize that articles by encyclopedias on the Internet aren't always totally reliable, I don't know what to tell you. If Longstreet vocally opposed blacks serving in the Confederate military (which is news to me despite having done extensive research on him for this article), that might be worthy of inclusion in the article. But we cannot have an entire section on Longstreet and slavery when Longstreet never owned slaves and never voiced any political opinions on the subject of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Longstreet lived with his uncle, Augustus Bald­win Longstreet when he was nine. Augustus owned a cotton plantation in Westover: Historian seeks to secure Augusta native Longstreet rightful place in Confederate history. I have no reason to doubt Encyclopedia Virginia. I supplied a source that said Longstreet owned slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I've told you that your source is not high quality and that no high quality sources mention it. Jeffry D. Wert's biography is a more than 400-page study on Longstreet. It's the best source on him that there is. If Longstreet owned slaves, why is it never mentioned in there, or in any other published biography? Face it, he didn't own slaves. Now please drop it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me to "drop it" in my own talk page. I simply gave a source that says Longstreet had slaves. I don't know why Wert did not mention Longstreet had slaves. Apparently Wert did not say Longstreet did not have slaves. I can't just discount the Virginia Encyclopedia. I believe both Longstreet's father and uncle owned slave plantations. Should there be a confirming source on the matter. I am not neccessarily opposed to that. It would certainly help. At some point slavery should be discussed in the article. The reader might ask whether Longstreet owned slaves. There were Confederate Generals who owned slaves. The traitor generals who fought to save slavery: Bases are named after generals including Leonidas Polk who owned 400 slaves, KKK leader John Brown Gordon and Henry Benning who feared a 'land in possession of the blacks' DailyMail.com 11 June 2020 No. I don't have any agenda on the matter. I think some discussion of slavery in the article would help get Longstreet to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reader can infer, as you would likely do if you read the article, that Longstreet never owned slaves based on the fact that he spent his entire pre-war adult life on military postings. It would have been pretty difficult to supervise a plantation while being posted on a military base. I'm not sure if you have I'm not worried about what will "get Longstreet to FA;" the article is already a featured article. You are ignorant of the subject matter and also quite arrogant, which is why you won't admit to being wrong even when it's obvious that you are. This being your own talk page is immaterial. Display name 99 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an idea of the kind of edits you were making to the article, you replaced "to," which was correct, with "too," which was incorrect. [4] An IP came and reverted it before I saw it. The idea that your changes improved the article is almost laughable. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! The conversation is over. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREAD

I'm not clear if you're attempting to reply to me here or here. Assuming you are, there are no sources in either reply, though you do reference your opinion. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references are in the Thomas Jefferson talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol ok. See my contribution history somewhere for the sourced response. VQuakr (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Washington's "Dutch" descent

I think it could possibly be a conflation of the April Fool's joke/parody site/whatever "news" that Mary Ball Washington - George's mother - was Albanian. Shearonink (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Washington family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles I.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Orville E. Babcock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Dent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda Arendt Cmguy777 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Lewis and Clark, not Louis and Clark. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Bible

What's your source for, "by the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Jefferson could be committing a crime today, defacing a Holy relic"? YoPienso (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what I said in the talk page only hyperbole, not meant to be in the article at all. But from what I read the Civil Rights Act of 1968 protected peoples freedom to worship and protected defacement of religious artifacts. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Arson Defence Act of 1996 makes it illegal to deface religious real property. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On article talk pages, please don't make comments that have no basis. The Civil Rights Act says nothing about defacing a holy relic, and in any case, wouldn't apply to TJ. The Arson Defense Act is about real property, meaning real estate, not about books or relics. YoPienso (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The law is Arson Prevention Act of 1996. I believe vandalizing a church is illegal. One can't legally break into a church and destroy Church property Bibles, then claim freedom of speech. I believe real property is any Church property found on the Church's real property, such as land or buildings. I have dropped the subject in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is a federal crime, such as destroying Church property Bibles, even if the person is allowed into the Church. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's NOT what Jefferson was doing. YoPienso (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To millions of Christians around the world Jefferson vandalized 8 Bibles. Correction: It is a federal crime to Vandalize federal property. It is a state crime to vandalize Church property like Bibles. Don't worry. Jefferson is not on trial for any crimes. The Bibles were apparently Jefferson's. It is not clear where he got them from. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Orville E Babcock - Brady-Handy Cropped.jpg

Notice

The file File:Orville E Babcock - Brady-Handy Cropped.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:Orville E. Babcock Brady-Handy Cropped Portrait.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 11:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I am very grateful, especially during these times, for your dedication to the U.S. Founders and Presidents, which I obviously share with you. I also appreciate your devotion to your GG Grandfather, Edward Smith. I think you would enjoy my own GG Grandfather, [[George Tucker (politician)], if you haven’t read that. He is an interesting character and a good read! Best. Hoppyh (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thanks for your support. My gg grandfather I believe was a musician, or drummer in the Union Army, during the Civil War. He may have served in the battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donaldson. Possibly the battle of Shilo, but I am not sure when his Union Army enrollment expired. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply indents

Hi, I'm not sure how it happened, but would you mind combining and moving your recent messages. Somehow, I'm sure accidental and not your fault, the indentation has gotten all messed up Andre🚐 01:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian removal

Worcester v. Georgia did not overturn the Indian Removal Act. Rather, it simply ruled that a Georgia statute that whites could not enter native lands without a license was unconstitutional. Jackson never defied the courts because the courts never challenged his decisions. Did you read anything about what actually happened in that decision before you posted about it? Display name 99 (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. The article says Jackson did not enforce the Supreme Court ruling. Jackson's intention by tresty, threat or force, was the Cherokees removal. 45,OOO :Indians were removed from their homes under the Jackson presidency. Latner (2002) says Jackson practiced ethnocentrism for white people. It is a fact. No judgment involved. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: treaty Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement about the article is misleading. The article says that there was nothing to enforce because the court never sought to prohibit Jackson from removing the tribes. You said that Jackson defied the courts, and this is not true. Display name 99 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop harrassing me in my talk page. Jackson could have sent federal Marshall's to allow white people into Cherokee territory who opposed a Georgia take over of their land, but he did not. The court was negligent in not demanding Jackson do so. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care about your opinion on what the Court did. I care that you disrupted an RfC by posting off-topic and factually incorrect statements. I'll go away now. Display name 99 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions in the talk page are made on the reliable sources I have, history videos or the Latner (2002) Graff book. I have told you to stop harrassing me in my talk page. This is the second time. I have dropped the stick. The article will survive with or without my commentary. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Review: Andrew Jackson

I have nominated Andrew Jackson for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Nice going on your edits at James Madison over the past weeks. I thought to ask if you might have any interest in doing a co-nomination for James Madison, for a FAC renomination. The article now looks sufficiently stable and all of the template tags seem to have been addressed. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes. I am interested. What does the co-nomination process involve? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get the nomination in over the next day or two. Once started at WP:FAC, then you can add your signature next to mine on the nomination. If you have ever done a peer review, then the FAC nomination can require multiple requests for modifications and upgrades which need to usually be added into the article by the nominators. If its successful, then you get to put a gold star at the top of your Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I don't have a book biography on Madison. Would it be good to get a biography book? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that most free public libraries tend to have at least one or two biographies of Madison on hand. I've found that the more recent one from about 5 years ago by Noah Feldman is well written and nice to have on hand as a reliable source just in case. He's a law professor at Harvard and wrote a pretty good biography on Madison; some of the other older biographies are also good. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is there anything in article right now that needs fixing? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently borrowing the Ralph Ketcham biography of Madison with Internet Archive. Ketcham seems to be an impartial author. It does have information on how Madison treated his slaves. I think that would be good. However, it really is not known how his father Madison Sr. treated his slaves. The plantation was a family affair. I am not sure when Madison took over everything. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On pp370-371 in the Ketchum book you should find something like the answer to your question related to who in the family was administering the estate and when: "Of the surviving three brothers (Francis, Ambrose, and William) and three sisters (Nelly, Sarah, and Frances), it was Ambrose who would eventually help to manage Montpelier for both his father and older brother until his own death in 1793." Separately, I've removed the last section template tag in the article recently as adequately serviced, and if there are any citation tags left then let me know and I'll try to take of of them. Otherwise, it looks like the article is ready to move forward at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suppose readers would be interested whether there was any harsh treatment of slaves at Montpelier. I can't find any source that says there was. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here for your comment on slavery questions at Montpelier. I've put in the nomination for James Madison on the FAC page today, and you can add your signature to the nomination next to mine whenever its convenient. Remember to try to be a thorough editor at the assessment since the participants who respond there generally want to see the article get better. See you there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article being reviewed? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A short follow-up since things seem to be moving along. Suggestion not to add any more images since the article already has an Image review favorably posted. New images can be added as needed after the assessment. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is fine. I added the Dolly Madison photo because she was popular and the first modern First Lady. Do we need to take the Dolley photo out? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Dolley photo. How is the FAR going? There has not been a lot of activity. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some nice edits you've made since last week. Just a small fact about feature articles is the 'FAC' is for candidate nominations heading towards becoming featured articles, and 'FAR' is for the editorial review of articles already at featured article status but which have drifted from over-edits and may need to be reviewed for being delisted. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was pinged by another editor in another discussion. Do you have that link? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not receiving that ping; do you have the editor's name? Separately, Schrocat is asking that you stop using 'done' templates on the peer assessment page since it slows down load time for FAC pages. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I just respond without the done templates now. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru has stated that the cites you added yesterday were not RS; I've switched for new cites. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to comply with adding references to the American Revolution by one editor. New World Encyclopedia seemed a good cite. What does "not RS" mean exactly? Why is NWE unreliable? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added Taylor (2016) American Revolutions: A Continental History, 1750-1804 book source. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not-RS is what Kuru called that source which denotes that the citation was not a reliable source in Kuru's view. Wikipedia does maintain a list of newspapers and journals which are considered to be unreliable, in a list which is color coded as green, or yellow, or red; the red ones are not to be used by Wikipedia editors. You can also contact Kuru about this specific citation and why it was mentioned as being not-RS. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope pulitzer prize winning author Alan Taylor (2016) American Revolutions is considered reliable. I only made the edits because one editor wanted references. When will this proccess end? I feel the cart is before the horse. Seems only minor matters are being brought up, that is causing trouble. Where is this reliability list? Was NWE on the list? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that NWE is on the list. My apologies for that. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question about how quick or slow its going, then the nominations are generally re-evaluated usually only once per week for whether a promotion ought to take place. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you were online at the same time as me; I've left a short comment for you about inflation in the review comments of the assessment page. Signing off for tonight. Cheers. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I read the message. You mentioned "2020". Did you want me to change the inflation year to 2021? Where? Cheers. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likely its best to wait for Kavensh to answer since he usually knows what he prefers. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can do that. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your last interchange with Gog today on Tuesday suggests that you understood him and that you'll do the edits as he requests. Can you get them done today or tomorrow? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link me to the edit requests from Gog? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link and your response to Gog earlier today here: [5]. Can you do the edit he is requesting sometime today or tomorrow? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page ranges added for Ketcham (2002) and Robinson (1999). Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda Arendt. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club

The Featured Article Medal
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Cheers. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on the successful nomination! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Cheers. Do you know when the article will be on the Wikipedia featured front page? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One must submit a request at WP:Today's featured article/requests for that to happen. If you have a particular day in mind for it being on the front page, then be sure to say so by placing this under "Specific date nominations". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

All-Around Amazing Barnstar
Nice going at James Madison. You should have one of these. If you decide to go ahead with the TFA mentioned above then I'll support you on the TFA nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the article should be nominated sooner than later, while the article is in good condition. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you go ahead with the TFA? I looked through the procedure. It looks complicated. I have never done a TFA before. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sfn reference in Orville E. Babcock

Hi, on 30 March 2022 you added] {{sfn|Marinez (March 15, 2021)}} to Orville E. Babcock. Unfortunately there is no such source defined in the article, so nobody can look it up, and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source it would be appreciated. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reference and source fixed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency Navigation Templates vs. Biography Navigation Templates discussion

Hello, Cmguy777! Since you are listed as an active member of the United States Presidents WikiProject, would you mind leaving a comment at a project talk page discussion about a series of templates that I created for the presidencies of Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush? Another editor and myself disagree about whether there should be a separate navigation template for each Presidency apart from the biographical navigation template. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington

Hi Cmguy777, my thoughts were to ask you if you were considering to add a gold FA star to your User page after your nice edits to the Madison article promotion last year. I've also noticed that you were recently on the Washington Talk page with various discussions. I'm starting to have thoughts that it might be nice to think about a nomination for promotion of the Washington page some time before his birthday celebration next year, and maybe you might think about doing it as a co-nomination. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ErnestKrause. How does one add a gold FA star to a talk page. I like to view all the Founder biography articles from a fair and neutral outlook. I have actually been to Washington's Mount Vernon home and estate in 1988. He lived a prosperous lifestyle. Do you mean co-nomination for featured article? How does that work? Is it time consuming? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fairly similar to the last time with James Madison being co-nominated here: [6]. Its likely to take a comparable amount of time for the Washington page as well since both were prominent among the first Presidents. If you have a chance to do a read through of the article, then you can let me know what you think. By the way, it looks like you now have a gold star at the top of your User page for Madison. I'm thinking that if the Washington page looks interesting to you, then maybe to nominate it in a week or something like that if you think it looks to be in good shape? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I remember the James Madison article, as co-nominator, was a busy process. I enjoyed working on that article. I have read through the Washington article. It is written well. I can't commit my time right now as a co-nominator for George Washington. What I recommend is a Grammar check for the whole article saying more with less words. I also recommend focusing on what caused Washington to change from being a loyal British colonist, to the quintessential American Patriot and military leader. For example we read he joined the Continental Army. He was made Commanding General. What was it that caused him to break with the King and Parliament? Was it personal or just political motivations? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back on this. Regarding your question as asked above, Washington was strongly discouraged by the actions of the British military in not offering him a commission in the British army. Following this discouragement, Washington began to establish larger sympathy with what Joseph Ellis has called "The Cause" in his 2021 book with this title, leading to Washington to identify with it in stronger and stronger terms as time passed. Possibly that's what you were asking about for some of the details. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think this "cause" emphasized in the article would be good. Apparently there were three strong reasons: 1. Treatment by British military 2. British Taxes 3. Tobbacco. Getting paid low price for his tobacco, and forced to buy British goods. These reasons should briefly be addressed in the article. It answers why Washington joined the Patriot forces. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The passage in Joseph Ellis' "The Cause" states that by the time of the First Continental Congress in 1774 that Washington became a steadfast though still guarded voice in "The Common Cause" with Washington stating his guarded position using the words "I am as well satisfied as I can be of my own existence, that no such thing (independence from Britain) is desired by any thinking man in North America" (Ellis, p 31). Ellis summarized "The Common Cause" at that time with the words that "the Coercive Acts must be repealed; Parliament's claim of sovereignty must be repudiated; a boycott of all imports from Britain, Ireland, and the West Indies must be enacted; whatever differences existed among the colonies must be subordinated to the larger purposes of a unified resistance..." (Ellis, p 30). Nice of you to mention this since Ellis also has thought quite a bit about it. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I mentioned Robert Cary in the article, the London merchant whom Washington sold his tobacco too. Also, I believe Washington could only buy British goods from Cary. Ellis 2004 mentions this troubled Washington, because Washington did not like to be controlled by anyone. Washington also did not like to show difference, apparently, to British military leadership. He was naturally an independent person. He was bypassed as a British regular army officer. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]