|
User talk:Cmguy777/Archive 1Articles for deletion nomination of Thomas Jefferson and slavery I have nominated Thomas Jefferson and slavery, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Your recent edits
July 2009
"Now" in Thomas Jefferson and slaveryThe time-present connotation of "now" in this edit caught my eye because it looked like blatant vandalism in the Huggle interface we use to patrol Wikipedia. What I saw appeared to be someone claiming that Thomas Jefferson was "now U.S. congressman from Virginia," as in today! On closer inspection, I want to encourage you to continue your productive and constructive editing of the page. Thanks for your help. Newportm (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Yes. I will avoid using time tenses. They can be confusing. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)} Your recent edits
When the deletion tag comes offYou'll be able to tell when the AfD is closed and the deletion tag can come off when there is a bunch of text at the top saying so. The article will either be deleted or remain, and the closer of the AfD usually takes the tag off of the article. If I were you, I would keep a copy of the latest version of the page, in case they decide to delete. That's not necessarily the end of the article, you might just have gotten a bum deal from the closer. I've seen AfDs come up two and three times; there is strictly speaking always the possibility of appeal, but on the other hand, there's no such thing as double jeopardy, either. In practical terms, though, there is a weight of precedence that comes with previous AfD decisions about an article, whether it has survived AfD, in which case its survival indicates there must be some merit to the article, or been deleted by one, which is a black mark against the article. Anarchangel (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Statue Jefferson.jpg Thank you for uploading File:Statue Jefferson.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC) I took the photos off. I am adding photos that are on other Wikipedia pages. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)} Multiple Issues TagI am considering deleting the Multiple Issues tag. If anyone has any objections please let me know. I believe the article is in good shape. Continued work is being done. I added appropriate photos that really make the page attractive. I also added a link to the main page. Please let me know any opinions on the matter. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)} I am taking the Multiple Issue tag off for the following reasons: 1. The article has authentic sources. 2. Any unpublished synthesis and/or opinions have been erased. 3. The article flows in a chronological fashion. 4. There are valuable links. 5. Information about Sally Hemings has been updated. 6. Valuable contributors have added to the articulate flow of the article. 7. Appropriate photos and maps have been added. Yes. The article needs more work, cleaning up, and general aesthetics. However, the Multiple Issues tag is unnecessary at this time.
File copyright problem with File:Monticello Slave Grounds.jpgThank you for uploading File:Monticello Slave Grounds.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Monticello .jpgThank you for uploading File:Monticello .jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Ulysses S. Grant Since you have done some extensive editing on Ulysses S. Grant, I was wondering whether you could look at the disagreement currently going on about an edit I made to the section on General Order 11? A user keeps reverting it, in the rudest possible way. A third voice would be helpful. Thanks. Iosefina (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Capitalization of headingsThe Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,
not:
This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
See WP:MSH for more information. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Yes. It is a force of habit for me to capitalize. I can be more alert with the First word capitalization headings. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)} Yes, I really wish you would respect the Wikipedia style in this regard. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Thomas Jefferson GAR notificationThomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Hi. I've reverted all your changes to Ulysses S. Grant, since every one I looked at was a cut and paste from another website, and we don't allow that on Wikipedia; we treat copyright very carefully here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Hello. I sited the sources. I respect copyrights. The text can be reworded, however, the facts will remain the same. The introduction to Grant's presidential campaign has are few factual errors. One, Grant did not refuse the appointment to Secretary of War. He reluctantly accepted a vacated office, under protest, is more accurate, while retaining his generalship. Grant ended giving up the keys to the office back to Stanton, without protest. Two, the Tenure of Office act was ruled unconstitional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926, 40 years after it had been repealed in 1887. It is also important to keep the votes counted correctly without rounding the numbers. Every vote counts. There is a danger of rewording everything, in my opinion, the facts have a tendency to get lost, like socks in a washing machine. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)}
Most if not all my edits on Ulysess S. Grant have been deleted. It is obvious that Wikipedia is more of a blog. If the edits don't suit the "control" editors then it gets deleted. Parts of the Grant site is good, but there are sections that are biased and sections without citations. I was expanding the Civil Rights section and made it chronological. Then deleted. It just reverted pretty much where it was before. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}
Wikipedia article:
Website article:
Science and education in IsraelHi, I made certain changes to your recent addition to S&E in I. The subject of educational discrimination is important, but needs to be presented with a more NPOV. I hope you agree that it is more convincing now. Arikk (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. The edit is good. The issue of forced segregation and school funding in schools are signifigant issues and should be addressed in the article. The update about the 2008 court ruling is good. I appreciate the edit! {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)} Lost $9BI moved this to the "Presidency of GWB second term" article and the "Iraq War" article (under criticisms and cost), where they are more appropriate. BLPs should be about a person and that person's life. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Linking
WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
Hi there. I just checked out the above article and its review. It looks in good order to me, and if it were down to me i'd pass this at GA - but it's up to you. If you need any assistance with the admin side of closing a review, let me know. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC) ANI thread concerning youHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible Vandal.The discussion is about the topic Ulysses S. Grant. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I have not vandalized anything. I was just going by the GA review! {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)}
I apologize. Sorry. I was scarred at the rate of reduction of size. Please, no hard feelings. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I was only going by the GA review to give more sources and reduce the size of the Article. The GA review also recommended a separate Ulysses S. Grant presidency page. I appreciate your concern with vandalism. However, no vandalism is involved. :) Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)}
Thanks Iben! {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)} GrantYes, I will review the article. slow down and be kind. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC) World War II GAWould you mind explaining these edits? Were you just on the wrong page when that happened? That's the World War II GA review, it shouldn't have anything to do with Grant, and there's still a review in progress there. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Ulysses S. GrantMy protocol is generally not to review an article I already have, so that it can get a fresh pair of eyes. Looks like it's in much better shape though, and the presidential administration article you created is very impressive. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ulysses S. Grant commentsHere are some comments about Ulysses S. Grant. I do not normally participate in formal reviews of articles (either as a reviewer or reviewee), so treat these as friendly input. As others have stated, the article is quite long. You have done a good thing by creating associated sub-articles, but you could perhaps shorten this one in the areas for which there is more detailed information elsewhere. For example, I don't see why the Scandals section should be more than a couple of paragraphs. I'm going to limit my comments to the military sections, because that is where my interests lie. One way in which you could trim this article is by removing details that are immaterial to his biography. The first one that jumps out at me is the identity of the officer who surrendered Fort Sumter. There are many other examples. When you read the description of a battle in a biography, the focus should not be on the specific details of the battle, but on the person. Did he employ any unusual or innovative strategy or tactics? Did he exhibit any personal achievements or foibles--conspicuous bravery, cowardice, drunkenness? Did he learn lessons that affected his later career? Did official or public reaction to the battle have any particular effect? Grant's 1861 promotion was not in the militia. The terminology is "brigadier general of volunteers," which means that he was a Federal officer with the rank in the temporarily expanded United States Army, but not a rank in the regular army. (There are some authors who use the expression US Volunteers, or USV, but that is not a practice in Wikipedia ACW articles. If you would like to see guidelines on formatting ACW battle and biography articles, check out User:Hlj/CWediting. Notice in particular that we attempt to use actual ranks, such as Maj. Gen. Jones, rather than rely on the honorific "General" Jones.) You offer no justification for calling the District of Southeast Missouri "critical." The Battle of Belmont was hardly a "strategic" action and was actually inconclusive, not a defeat. You should link directly to the battle article when you discuss it. The battle article has an interesting anecdote about Grant being the last one to board the riverboat. In your description of Fort Henry, it is Wikipedia practice to say Union Army instead of U.S. Army. I do not think that listing the casualties for minor battles such as Fort Henry is very interesting to the reader. What is more interesting is that Grant led a combined land and naval force against the fort. For some reason you list the commanders of Fort Donelson in the description of Fort Henry, but don't mention its commander. (Well, that is an example of a detail that doesn't really matter.) I noticed that in this paragraph and many others, you have a leading space in front of a footnote. The footnote number should touch the punctuation at the end of the sentence. For Fort Donelson, there is no reason to italicize Indian Creek (and the name of the creek is really pretty unimportant for the biography). Grant was 4 miles down river, but that was actually north of the fort. It's "rout", not "route", but that is hardly an accurate description. The Confederates pushed the Union Army back over a mile, but they rallied and held. You should consult the article Army of the Tennessee for a more accurate description of the command changes prior to the battle of Shiloh. The town of Savannah is on the eastern bank of the river, 10 miles north of Pittsburg Landing. The terminology "hard strike" is unusual for a military article and should be replaced by "attack." Your observation about fortifications should be balanced by the fact that their use was very rare this early in the war. The article Battle of Shiloh has a more accurate description of Grant's reaction to the start of the battle. In fact, the second paragraph of that article is a better summary of the battle action; Sherman and McClernand on the Union right actually gave way, leaving the majority of action around the Hornet's nest on the Union left. Reinforcements actually arrived on the evening of April 6. Lew Wallace was subordinate to Grant, so he did not receive reinforcements from him. You do not mention why Beauregard was in command the second day, although I am not attempting to get you to increase the length of this section, which is probably 100% too long. (To give you some perspective, a biography of another general/president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, devotes about as much space to all of World War II as you do to this single battle.) The article Army of the Tennessee has a more accurate description of the command arrangements before Corinth. The final paragraph of the Chattanooga section probably belongs in the following section. The first sentence of the section Overland Campaign is overstated in comparison to the preceding paragraph. Butler's campaign was called the Bermuda Hundred Campaign and Sigel's was the start of the Valley Campaigns of 1864. We use Roman numerals for Union corps: II Corps. Usually when casualties are described for the Overland campaign, we make it clear that Grant had replacements available and that the losses incurred by Lee were often of higher percentage to his army, which had no replacements available. In Petersburg, link to Brig. Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith. I think it does the reader a disservice to compress a full campaign name such as Siege of Petersburg (or the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign) down to a link siege. You should consider using the {{Further}} templates in these sections. The section War by attrition is rather duplicative of material in the Overland campaign section and could be shortened. The final paragraph does not belong in that section. One of the most common and controversial discussions of Grant involves alcoholism. Did he drink during the war? Were any of his battles affected by this? The War Department sent people to monitor his behavior. All of these would be good topics to include in the article. Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Ulysses S. Grant GA ReviewHello. I have been trimming down the battle narrations as much as possible without losing meaning or accuracy. Should the Civil War be another separate section for Ulysses S. Grant with just a summary of his campaigns and battles? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}
All I really want is for all the USG articles to have GA status. I am not sure how many reviewers it takes to get a GA review. I have been researching with McFeely's book on Grant that won the Pulitzer Prize. In my opinion, it is the best book on Grant. McFeely has a way of explaining things to the reader and gives accurate descriptions. Until reading McFeely I did not know that Grant's life was spared at Fort Donelson when the Confederate sharp shooter declined to fire while he road away on his horse. I incorporated McFeely's book with your narrative. I consider all the Articles on USG to be kind of like a Civil War memorial or tribute. The other thing I learned in my research is that Grant actually was more an alchoholic then I previously thought, especially during the 1863 Vicksburg campaign. Do you feel the Article is good now for GA status? Is it still too long? The other issue is Anti-Semitism. I would have to address that issue. Summarizing the anti-semitism article might deflect the signifigance. I would prefer to keep the article intact. I would appreciate any input. Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}
I think the article is looking much better but it still has some issues with DAB links, Alt text for images and references. I also think that there are too many images on the right and I recommend adjusting some of those as well. I also see a few places where you should change hyphens to endashes such as in the lead where it says two-year, patronage-based, etc. I think its getting close though and I think you have done a good job cleaning up a difficult article.--Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
GrantI am attempting to make more clean ups to the article. I have attempted and outline. It would shorten the outline, however, it might take away some of the emotional appeal to the reader. I believe that it is good to have the Civil War segments as is without reducing the size anymore. The Civil War really is what made Grant who he was. Do you believe the article can get a GA with the current length? McFeely and Smith are both good sources along with Simpson. I also am reading the linked Civil War articles to get matched. I don't want to repeat what they are saying but it is important, like you say, to keep them in agreement with each other. I have gotten the Shiloh to go along with the Shiloh articles. Shiloh was tough because it involved more then just a seige. Also Vann Dorn and Forest constantly harrassed Grant. Maybe that can be put or reput in the article somehow in the Shiloh segment. Getting an FA would also be good. If you believe the Civil War section should be reduced to a summary, please let me know. I appreciate all your advise. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}
(Request to review Vicksburg section.)
Okay, here are some comments about your new Vicksburg text.
Well, I got tired of leaving general hints, so I pulled the trigger on an edit of that section for you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Couple more minor things with GrantI went and looked and some of the references are still a bit messy. Sometimes you spell out the entire ref such as in ref 1, sometimes they are abbreviated like 4 and they should be consistent. There are also still some other minor issues as shown below. I don't know that these would stand in theh way of the article getting to GA, but as long as you have the time I thought I would mention them. If it makes a difference I am about to undetake a similar struggle with the Douglas MacArthur article. I would ask you to review it as well but its in such a state at the moment theres not much point.
Your GA nomination of Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandalsThe article Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold
Philip the Arab and Christianity GARHey, Cmguy. I've brought Philip the Arab and Christianity to GAR. The page is here. G.W. (Talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Info about Peer reviewWP:WikiProject History/Review#Peer review should explain the process. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) William S. ClarkHi. Thanks again for your comments on William S. Clark. If I'm reading correctly (and I'm rather new to all this) I don't think a second is needed to assign it GA status if you, as the reviewer, feel it's good to go. WP:GAC has the directions under the "Pass" section if you'd like to promote it. If not, no worries. Cheers, Historical Perspective (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Hi, if you want to pass the article, remove it from the nominations page as described in the instructions. Hekerui (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Cmguy. Much obliged! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Canby Memorial Site Commemorative Plaque.jpgThanks for uploading File:Canby Memorial Site Commemorative Plaque.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. fetchcomms☛ 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Talkback
File copyright problem with File:Canbys Cross Memorial Site Photo.jpgThank you for uploading File:Canbys Cross Memorial Site Photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Ulysses S. GrantThe article Ulysses S. Grant you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Can you put your copyediting on a hold for about an hour or so? I'm going to make a major edit, basically overhaulting the current citations and standardizing them. –MuZemike 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Friendly reminder
Re: Lost conclusionHiya. Take the first sentence for example: "Throughout the Lost series the producers and writers purposely kept viewers attention with excellent writing and subplots; that led to massive discussion by many viewers with various interpretations of the show." Commenting that the writing is "excellent" is a purely judgmental statement. The "massive discussion" and many of the other grand statements need to be cited by a reliable source. The conclusion was intended to be vague and listing any one interpretation as definitive or more important is not what Wikipedia is for. Moreover, I don't think two references to "eCanadaNow" count as verifiable, neutral information for an encyclopedia. See WP:OR/WP:NOT#OR for the policy on including something like an "interpretation" - original thought. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Article on Grant's Civil War Career?Hi. Just wanted to flag you about a question that I thought you could help with. This has to do with Operation Brothers at War an initiative to get Civil War articles up to FA in time for the 150th. It's been suggested that a separate article be written for Grant's Civil War career. I think you were considering doing this...and given your past work, I think you'd be the guy to do it! You can check out the question here. Any thoughts would be welcome. Cheers! Historical Perspective (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Sample USG Civil War segment summaryThanks Hal. The following was a summary of Ulysses S. Grant's Civil War record to replace the one on USG article. This is done in order to put the information currently on USG Civil War segment on a separate article page. If there are errors in the summary, please let me know. It is important to be accurate. I have been using Smith and McFeely as sources. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)}
I hate to say this, but you are not doing very accurate work. Here are comments on your recent edits. Fort Sumter surrendered early on the morning of April 14. At Cairo, the Ohio River merges with the Mississippi. The battle of Belmont did not involve a "Fort Belmont." Saying that Grant had to retreat to Paducah can be misinterpreted -- he set out on a raid from Paducah and then returned there. Fort Henry actually surrendered to the Navy and Grant's infantry was not used. The fall of Fort Henry opened up the Tennessee River as far as northern Alabama, not "the Union war effort." Floyd's attack on February 15 was not a counterattack because Grant had not attacked him previously -- it was an attack to open up an escape corridor to Nashville before Grant could attack. The assertion that Grant was assumed to be drunk should be reworded to indicate rumors spread about this. Halleck's position as general in chief was of the Union Army, not the Armed Forces (an expression that includes the Navy). You did not correct the assertion about Shiloh being the costliest battle. The paragraph about the Vicksburg campaign, arguably Grant's most important, is still not very good. As I said, even the lead section of the Vicksburg campaign article is superior to this. If the entire Vicksburg campaign gets a paragraph, Belmont should rate about a sentence. Grant's elevation to command in the West was prompted by Rosecrans's defeat at Chickamauga and the siege at Chattanooga, but you make it seem as if they were only coincidentally related. Saying that it occurred in 1863 is unhelpfully nonspecific. The lead section of the Chattanooga Campaign article is a better summary than this one. By the way, search through your text for semicolons. Virtually all of them are misused and should be replaced by commas. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I'll look it over Monday. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC) My comments will start after Shiloh. It is arguable whether Grant's assignment from Halleck was punishment. Although Grant was demoralized by the second-in-command status, Halleck did not portray it as punishment and some historians have argued that it was appropriate. The sentence about the combined casualties would appear more logically at the beginning of the post-Shiloh paragraph. The sentence about moving southward to Vicksburg is confusing prior to the paragraphs about Vicksburg. I don't think it is useful to relate the two arcane campaign names for Vicksburg (which you show in bold). You have not mentioned Sherman's failed attacks at Chickasaw Bayou or the political maneuvering against John A. McClernand, both of which are rather relevant for a Grant biography. It is worth mentioning that the siege of Vicksburg started with two unsuccessful frontal assaults (May 19 and May 22). After these failed, Grant ordered the siege, which continued for 40 days. Two aspects of the aftermath: this was the second Confederate army that surrendered to Grant, and, in conjunction with the Union victory at Gettysburg, Vicksburg is often considered the turning point of the war. At Chattanooga, the cracker line was not primarily a railroad line. Hooker did not "take over" Lookout Mountain -- he captured it in battle. (I'm going to assume you will add links to appropriate battle articles when you finish the text.) Grant's reaction of fury to the advance on Missionary Ridge was only in the initial moments. He obviously was not furious after the Ridge was successfully taken. Your description of lieutenant general is confusing. Washington had the full rank. Scott was a brevet Lt. Gen. Dates for those promotions are not relevant. What do you mean it was an "undisclosed location" for the meeting with Lincoln? They met in Washington. I would say economic rather than socioeconomic infrastructures. Lee's army was the Army of Northern Virginia. The Army of the Potomac was led by George G. Meade, whom Grant supervised by co-locating his headquarters. Hancock led the II Corps. Fighting a war of attrition was not one of Grant's stated goals, although it turned out to be one of the results of the campaign. Grant hoped to engage and defeat Lee's army, not simply to wear it down. It was only because Lee was too expert at countering Grant's blows that Grant had to fight inconclusive battles and then move around Lee's flank each time. You really employ hyperbole in the Spotsylvania Court House paragraph. I doubt that it's necessary to go into a lot of detail of each of the battles of the Overland campaign. (It is unfortunate that I cannot simply point you to the Overland campaign article for better overview material, but improving that article is on my to-do list. It is obviously pretty sketchy currently. You might want to look at my article Eastern Theater of the American Civil War for a reasonable level of summation of the campaign. The background section of Siege of Petersburg also is a good summary.) In the battle of North Anna, the interesting fact for a Grant biography is that Robert E. Lee had the opportunity to trap portions of the Army of the Potomac and defeat them in detail, but he was not able to implement his plan due to illness. Sherman's Atlanta campaign could hardly be called a futile military game of the attack and retreat. Sherman advanced steadily on Atlanta, outmaneuvering Joseph E. Johnston. He had to overcome significant geographic obstacles as well as a determined enemy in defensive positions. About the only problem with his advance was it was going a bit more slowly than the northern public would have liked. I do not think that Lee, trying to determine where the Army of the Potomac was going after Cold Harbor, had an immediate expectation that Grant would [be]siege Richmond. Petersburg was the junction of five railroads, it did not have five railroad junctions. PGT Beauregard, not PTG. Smith's attack against Petersburg began on June 15, but he suspended it that evening and did not complete his effort until June 16. Petersburg eventually fell on April 2, 1865. I am sorry to say that I will be retiring from this review role. It is really rather time-consuming for me to provide detailed comments for someone else's work. I enjoy writing original things for Wikipedia, not so much helping other people with their writing. Good luck with your efforts. You really need to keep your citations up with your sample text or you will be completely lost. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the second is preferable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the separate focus on the Civil War is appropriate. His antebellum service was not lengthy or significant, other than to introduce the concept of his early failures in life (military and civilian), contrasted against his later successes. His postbellum military service was more politically oriented than military. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Although I think my original work on this article had a good balance of encyclopedic brevity versus detail, it was done in the early days of Wikipedia when citations were not considered so important, so I did not attempt to seize any control of it after you started making large changes. (My modus operandi in Wikipedia is to create quality articles without running into a lot of controversy with other editors.) I think that Hartfelt is a very good writer who knows Grant well and has a good knowledge of the reliable sources, so his sweep through your work will be a helpful addition. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC) TalkbackMessage added 21:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Grant overhaulCmguy777: Thank you for your message. I know you have knocked yourself out on the Grant page and have nothing but good intentions. I'm not sure, however, that the overhaul was a good idea -- to replace so much developed material all at once seems to rather invite problems. I don't know how much more I will try to contribute, but I have tried to help with sections involving the Tennessee River campaigns. Hartfelt (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC) HiMessage added 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Jefferson and slaveryYou asked me to contribute to the article; I did by pointing the errors so that you might correct them. That's called editing, and I did a lot on your article. Notice I put clear examples & URL's to make it clear and specific. And what is troubling is you don't want to understand the main problems. Others have already pointed to writing things not in sources, poor sources, 100's of edits. Please use preview, it's so confusing when you make so many edits that nobody can follow a page. This is a problem. Now, you said you've studied history, then you're capable of doing better. And I know you can because you've done some good work as well. I notice you won an award on Grant. You've also put some excellent original sources with URL's (very helpful to me and others) like the Congress Journals etc, and given constant attention to prevent vandalism etc. If you work on the advice editors gave you, your work will improve much. It's the quality, not the quantity that counts here. Ebanony (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained the reasons for the npov on the talk page. What is it you don't understand? Tell me so I can explain it to you. Oh, and please put the discussion here or on that tlak page. Putting them on my talk page isn't helping; here or on the article's talk page right next to where the conversation is, not in a new subtitle. Ebanony (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Washinton and slaveryAfter posting the last comment, I noticed more problems on your site Washington and slavery. I suggest you take seriously Wikipedia's position on copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems Cutting and pasting text from other webpages is not allowed. Other than a direct quote "" or a paraphrase, you cannot engage in that practice because that violates fair use, since they're copyrighted. Please address the problems in that article. How many people have cited you for this problem? WIth all due respect, do you understand why copying text from other sources is a copyright problem? I'm warning you about this problem again. Ebanony (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
You need to understand the difference. Apart from that, you need to stopy copying text. Even if you cite a source, that is still not allowed. Repeat that. No copying text. You've been cited by what, 4 or 5 editors for copyright? Seems you're close to getting banned from Wikipedia. Ebanony (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
NPOV is one problem, and if you address the problems I pointed out on the talk page a few minutes ago, then we can discuss removing the dispute. I see you tried to make improvements, and that's good, but that's not enough; I tried to encourage you to do more. I'm asking you again. Copyright infringement is another problem. You removed my warning to you. I'm not attacking you; I'm trying to warn you here. I'm worried they might ban you if they see how extensive your copyright and plagarism is. I did that to give you a chance to address the 10 obvious examples in this article alone I'm pretty sure you made. I'm reiterating what 4 or 5 other editors have told you: copyright is not allowed. Remove the copyright problems you cut and pasted from Mt Vernon and other sites. You copied verbatim text in many places. About half the paragraphs in that article have this problem. Ebanony (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You [Ebanony] deleted my edits on your talk page and one of your edits on this article was undone. I am going through the article to reword any edits with alleged copyright violations. I have edited the GW and slavery page. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I made significant changes to both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson articles. As I mentioned before you had made an edit that was undone. The article looks good, in my opinion. I prefer constructive criticism over blatant accusations or insults. You mentioned you are not attacking me [Ebanony], then why do you ignore the changes I have made to the articles? I have made every effort to rewrite without bias and to summarize accurately from the cited sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has come due for administrative closure today. As it has not been edited to address the copyright problems in the time since you were notified of their existence, I have now blanked the article as per procedure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. A temporary space is linked from the article's face in which you may propose a rewrite if you choose. Please make sure that you write all content in your words, except as you utilize brief and clearly marked quotations. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". If you do choose to propose a rewrite, please be careful with any other sources you may have used in the article, if you have also followed these too closely. The article will be revisited in another week at which time, if no usable rewrite has been proposed, it will probably be truncated or restored to an earlier version before the introduction of problematic text. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Ulysses S. Grant GANI think, with all the work that has been done on Ulysses S. Grant since its last failed GAN, it is safe to say that another GAN will result in the article being promoted. Do you think it's ready for another GAN? The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Grant Postage stampsHi Cmguy777, I am glad that the addition of the Grant on US Postage section is welcomed. Perhaps three stamps is the practical limit. I have no problem with that. Thank you for taking the time to rearrange the stamps and putting the other on the talk page. Too often users 'on a mission to clean up' just delete what they feel is not appropriate with no explanation or note of courtesy. Again, thank you for taking the time to rearrange the section. All the best. -- GWillHickers (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC) LemenIn case you were wondering, I had to remove all references to Lemen as per Wikipedia's V policy. There is no evidence to support the claims; there was no compact.Ebanony (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me try to explain: every edit you make must conform to Wikipedia's rules; the overwhelming number of edits I made was due to violations of it. I want to strongly caution you from posting that material again. I'd like to avoid contacting administration. The Lemen stuff alone has several egregious violations.Ebanony (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
TalkbackYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. TJ & slavery
"Winnie"
Jefferson statue Here, use this. Merry Christmas The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas! Spread the WikiLove by adding {{subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree}} to any editor's talk page with a friendly message. --The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC) American Civil War anniversary sectionHey, I responded on the talk page about the anniversary section of American Civil War. I personally don't think it works as a section, but it could be made into a standalone article. -LtNOWIS (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC) GarfieldHey, Pal. Nice to see you have done some work on Garfield. I just started Peskin's biography and will be camping out here for a while. I think I'm going to really like this President...he was a great writer from what I've seen so far. I thought I'd ask if you know anyone we can get to look at Garfield's layout - got a couple big gaps - and I don't know how to manage pic file placements etc. I am quite envious of your "cleanup" barn star - - goodness knows you have earned it! Hang in there. Go Packers! Carmarg4 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Congratulations on getting "Gar" to GA!! Carmarg4 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Forbes reviewYou can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Vote neededVotes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The Monticello CommunitySince you were interested in how the Monticello Association was dealing with the Hemings descendants, I thought you might like to know that some of its members reached out to them, including one who had earlier opposed their membership, but carefully read the facts and became convinced. Three people, one from Martha Wayles' descendants and two from Hemings' (one white and one black), have gotten together to organize new renunions at Monticello, and now created the Monticello Community - open to descendants of all the people who lived there. In late 2010, they were honored for their work in family and racial healing with the Common Ground Award, by the Search for Common Ground organization. You can see their website: "The Monticello Community", Official Site. A good story.Parkwells (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Noticeboard Jefferson articlePardon my edit, but I must inform you that I had to refer an editor to the noticeboard for his fringe theories (not you). Your conduct is fine, but since you were involved in the dispute, I cited your discussion & warnings to him on this matter as well as those of other editors. You can see it here, and if I misquoted/inaccurately posted something involving you, then please say so: [5] [6] Ebanony Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to comment on that page, just to make known any errors I might have made involving your words/edits; I don't want this misconstrued into WP:CANVAS, which it is not. (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Page Progress in Mid-MarchYour attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Longbranch meetingAny idea when this meeting took place? Carmarg4 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your steady support, many contributions, and adding knowledge for getting the full story told.Parkwells (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Regarding James A. GarfieldAlthough turning down a copyedit request feels a little like shirking my duty as a member of the Guild, I'm going to be busy in real life over the next month and a half. I doubt I'll have time to copyedit an article that long. If it turns out that I have more spare time than I expect, I may look it over, but I'd advise you to request help elsewhere. I wish you good luck with the review, though. A. Parrot (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC) FYI...I worked on the queries in the GA review. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC) TalkbackMessage added 01:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GwillhickersYou are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}}) Chester ArthurI'm reading the Reeves book, myself, and will read Karabell next. I was actually planning on giving it a complete re-write. There's not much there to build on. --Coemgenus 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It's done. I'd like to do a peer review next. I'd be glad to invite your comments on it when it gets started. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US PresidentsGreetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Leonidas D. DyerThanks for inviting my collaboration on your article. Good to hear from you! Parkwells (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Star routesNice work. Looking forward to the finished product. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Chester Arthur GAI'm pretty sure the GA review is supposed to be done by someone unconnected with the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know I nominated it for a DYK - set the date for 7/31 and noted we were still working on it. Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Declaration of IndependenceGlad to see you're working on this too, now. If you can do anything about those missing citations in the "Text" section, I'd appreciate it. I don't have time to gather sources this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC) HelpI have just been doing some edits to images at James Buchanan. My last edit was an error and needs to be undone. I am unable to undo it. I would be grateful (and others too) if you could. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC) September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. I've read OsofskyAnd Dr. Jensen is right. Donald can't be read correctly without the critique Osofsky provides. Instead of my typing this twice, visit his talkpage here and read what I have to say after my first read through I'm going to scan this in and create a PDF for you to read. I'll send a touchbase email which you can respond to if you want the copy emailed to you. I'm going to pursue the book I mentioned on his talk tomorrow. I'll be at the library much of the week for other reasons anyway. This took me all of five minutes to get, so it's zero trouble on my part. BusterD (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011
 A tag has been placed on File:President Ulysses S. Grant seated Brady.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 this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mlpearc powwow 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Ulysses S. GrantHello Hlj. Would you Hlj, be interested in editing the Ulysses S. Grant article for a rewrite from the Vicksburg Campaign through Appomattox? One contributor in the talk page mentioned a rewrite was needed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notificationHi. In Ulysses S. Grant, you recently added a link 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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC) You do realise that this article is in the middle of a GA Review, right? Your edits should be proposed on talk before being placed in the article. Also, your refs are in a poor format that is at odds with what's going on in the article. Alarbus (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. File:Hamilton Fish Brady.jpg listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hamilton Fish Brady.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC) File:U. S. Senator Charles Sumner.jpg listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:U. S. Senator Charles Sumner.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Since it appears we finally have agreed to a shorter summary of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, there are suggestions that the Slavery section should also be summarized more, as it now has a well-developed main article (due to your good work). Just wanted to let you know, in case you'd like work with StudyHard, a new editor, who may try to work on the summary. At this point I think it could be shortened; it got very loaded with many quotes. Also, I am trying to keep the position of the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" next to that of "Marriage and family" in the TJ article, since the academic consensus accepts that as a widower, he had a long-term relationship with Hemings and more children who survived with her than by his wife.Parkwells (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Amos T. Akerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (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) 10:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) File:Whiskey Ring 02.jpg listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whiskey Ring 02.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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC) January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projectsThe January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Disambiguation link notificationHi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (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) 10:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Charles Sumner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alexander Stewart and Tenure of Office Act (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) 10:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC) HayesYou added material to the Rutherford Hayes article that is cited to "Hoogenboom (1988)", but the only Hoogenboom work in the notes was written in 1995. To which work are you referring? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited James Madison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Erskine (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) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Thomas JeffersonThanks for having the article protected, and your stamina. Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Taking a break
The only way to resolve this dilemna is to allow an administrator to step in and take over the Thomas Jefferson article. Brad, TheDarkOneLives, and Gwillhickers have taken over the article and created a "hornets nest" in the discussion page. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC) File:U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish Brady .jpg listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish Brady .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. Kelly hi! 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC) You've earned a real one
Thanks Shearonink. Apparently politics can get involved in a Wikipedia article in terms of Jeffersonian protectionism. I am not sure how the wikipedia policy of banning ownership of articles is enforced. Apparently editors can gang up on, haze, or target other editors in the talk page in order to bully their opinions into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC) ... has been undeleted, after your comments at the help desk. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 7Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 14Hi. When you recently edited George S. Boutwell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican Party and Whig Party (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) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Slavery in the US c. 1800Hi! I'm commenting here on your talk page instead of the Jefferson talk page because I sincerely wish to see that discussion end. You may want to check your numbers wrt to slave-owners and slaves. This paragraph from a reputable site shows a clear picture of the "slave society" of the time, and of how many whites owned slaves.
Also, "Slave owners controlled politics and economics, though about 70% of Southern whites owned no slaves and usually were engaged in subsistence agriculture," from Origins of the American Civil War. As for millions of slaves--where did you get that? Maybe you're mixing up Civil War times with the early Republic. Here's a link. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC) The site sourced in the Jefferson article talk page clearly states that in 1810 there were 1,000,000 slaves in the U.S. A third of the persons were slaves in the South overall, however, in some areas of Georgia and South Carolina low countries slaves out numbered whites. Slavery was totally accepted by most Southerners and any slave owner who freed slaves would be ostracized by Southern society. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
VandalismHi. With reference to your message on my talk page [7] is the vandalism that occurred, presumably from the IP address you were using before you logged in and commented on my user page last week. You'll note that the vandalism occurred in 2007 and that the message was left then. So it probably wasn't you. I hope this helps. Martinp23 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 5Hi. When you recently edited William W. Belknap, 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) 10:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 12Hi. When you recently edited George M. Robeson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reparations and O'Toole (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) 10:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 20Hi. When you recently edited Virginius Affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (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, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 27Hi. When you recently edited Lot M. Morrill, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Confederacy and Republican Party (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) 10:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Minor note...Hi Cmguy777! For obvious reasons I avoid using the unadorned SS as my initials - if needed, I go with StS. But plain Stephan is fine as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Image tagging for File:General Benjamin Butler Brady-Handy.jpgThanks for uploading File:General Benjamin Butler Brady-Handy.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 28Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Jefferson to ColeEarth to Mars, here. It is impossible that anyone who has read the letter in question could conclude, "TJ was advocating that slavery was good for blacks. TJ's reasoning was a rationalization for keeping blacks in bondage." Yopienso (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yopienso, with all due respect, Jefferson's white supremacy more then anything kept blacks enslaved up until the American Civil War. After the American Civil war, white supremacy, suppressed blacks civil rights and kept other nonwhite races from becoming U.S. citizens up until the 1950's. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
An excellent article of Jefferson would let the reader be given enough information to decide if Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC) JeffersonBelieve it or not, I have seen articles with much more hostility than the Jefferson article. When editors have strong opinions, and disagree on the basic facts, things like this can happen. Fortunately I think most of the editors are reasonable. If we keep working on it, we should be able to make the article look much better.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Treaty of Paris (1783)Please don't continue to embarrass yourself at Talk:Thomas Jefferson.
Yopienso (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The DOI created loyalists and continentals and had to do with citizenship status. I never stated the King had to mention to DOI. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Let me know when you're done, and I'll look again at the article. It's obvious you are busy with it. I'm a spellchecker...
BTW: I use FireFox which has an English spellchecker built-in. It helps. Shenme (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Arthur TFAHi Cmguy777, I'm writing both yourself and Coemgenus regarding Chester A. Arthur. I would like to nominate it as a Today's Featured Article to run on the main page October 5th (Arthur's birthday) to coincide with the upcoming presidential election. I won't do so first without both of your consent, as you are the two main contributors to the article. Thanks --Chimino (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Yes. You have my consent. Please nominate Chester A Arthur for featured article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 3Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwards Pierrepont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Invalid (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) 14:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC) slaveryI wonder whether I could persuade you to work on Slavery in ancient Rome? We're working really hard at Roman Empire to cover all the topic areas that have been missing, while not letting the length get out of hand. Also, the section is specifically about slaves in relation to Roman law, not their working conditions or the general sociological picture. A section on "Slave labor", including what kinds of work they did, working conditions, and so on, goes under "Economy." In addition, the section already says that slaves could accumulate money and be manumitted, and that freedmen (see the section Roman Empire#Freedmen) still had patronage obligations to their former master. I hope you understand that we all appreciate your input! But if you want to go into slavery at greater length, I really urge you to either work on Slavery in ancient Rome, or create a section under "Economy" titled "Slave labor." Cynwolfe (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The Roman Empire needs to have a Slavery section in order to broaden the scope of the article. If you appreciated my input, Cynwolfe, then why did you delete most of my edits and added a clarification notice? I was going to add the Mattingly book. I believe the best thing to do is add a slavery section to the Roman Empire article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Roman EmpireThe structure and direction of the "Society" section was discussed on the talk page and has a consensus. Please don't change it without discussion and feedback. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 23Hi. 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 Bunting (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) 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for October 4Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert E. Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arlington House (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) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for October 29Hi. 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 Crystal Lake, Florida (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, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
|
