User talk:JohninMaryland

This user may have left Wikipedia. JohninMaryland has not edited Wikipedia since 9 June 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is my talk page - please leave a message, and I will get back to you as swiftly as possible!

Welcome! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Knott | The otter sankThank you, any critique of the articles I am posting is most welcome - I have found the more people who look at them, the quicker mistakes get caught! JohninMaryland (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying articles

Hi Kirill and thank you for the nice welcome. I just posted two new articles which I believe fall under the Military History Project, Dohäsan, and Little Arkansas Treaty. I also expanded Satanta from a one-sentence stub to a full article. I believe these articles fall under Military History because Dohäsan and Satanta were famous Kiowa war chiefs, with both commanding the Native American forces at the First Battle of Adobe Walls. The Little Arkansas Treaty was a major treaty between the US and the Plains Tribes which was part of the Indian Wars. If I am incorrect, and the Military History Project does not have these articles, would you let me know who does? They need to be classified and reviewed. Thanks in advance for your kind help!JohninMaryland (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 3 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dohäsan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Excellent article! Thanks for you contributions. --Royalbroil 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royalbroil Thank you very much for the kind compliment on my articles. I am just trying to help! I would humbly suggest another fascinating fact in an article which I expanded from a one sentence stub to a full article, (expanding it at least 20 fold) was in Satanta was that he was the first Indian chief to be tried in a US Court for an indian raid. Another interesting fact is that he killed himself to prevent having to die in prison, and was the model for teh character Blue Duck in the Lonesome Dove series. Thanks again! JohninMaryland (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Native American Military History Task Force?

Yes, both articles are in scope for us. We don't have a dedicated task force for them at the moment, as there hasn't been sufficient interest (and if we did create one, I expect it would need to cover all the indigenous populations of the Americas). A lot of the material is included in the US military history task force, though, for obvious reasons. Kirill 13:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kirill - thanks for the swift response. I am in the process of attempting to add a number of articles on Native American military history issues, whether they are articles on individuals who played key roles in those events, (such as Dohäsan, the last Principal Chief of the Kiowa, who commanded the Native American forces at the First Battle of Adobe Walls, which resulted in his driving a UA Army force from the field in 1864), or conflicts which have not been covered because they are relatively small in scope. I just wanted to be sure I was correct that all these events, individuals and articles are covered by the Military History Project as I thought they were. I will just continue to add the articles, and mark the talk pages as covered by the project, and wait for assessment. Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK January 17

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isa-tai, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koitsenko

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Koitsenko, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council House Fight

Hi John, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your changes to the Council House Fight. I am sure that what you changed it to is factually accurate, but the passages you changed were cited to a source which did not give that information. If you have a new source, then please put the information back in cited to that source. Thanks! 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed right after I submitted this that you had been back to the article so the note wasn't necessary. Thanks for being soooo prompt. Karanacs (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I will look up the page number tomorrow, and put it in. Anderson is pretty adamant on issues of genicide towards the Native Americans - he claims millions were killed through disease, war, et al. I appreciate your help in identifying sections which need citation - you are an extremely skilled editor, and any article you work on is the better for it. Speaking of that, I posted some new articles recently that could benefit from your review - Isa-tai, Dohäsan, Satanta, and Koitsenko ANY editing help you could give would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. THANK YOU for the kind words - that was very nice of you to say. I've just figured out that you are likely the same John that I worked with on the Rachel Plummer article before, so it's nice to talk to you again! I'm glad you are concentrating on expanding the information about Native Americans in wikipedia, as I think the encyclopedia is really lacking in this area. I took a look at the articles you listed. Be careful of neutral word choice; overall, the articles were fine but there were a few sentences or adjectives that I removed or reworded to be a bit more neutral. I also added more wikilinks. For users who aren't familiar with the subject, following a wikilink can help them learn more about Dog Soldiers or the Tonkawa tribe. I also made some really minor changes: wikilink month-day combinations (like January 22), don't put wikilinks in section headings, and don't repeat the article title in the section heading. On the whole, good work! I learned a lot. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Karanacs (talk)! The kind words are well deserved, you do a great job, and the help is most sincerely appreciated! Actually, I have another request for help - I have written an article on Santa Anna, (just posted it) the Comanche War Chief, and contemporary of Buffalo Hump. I would appreciate your review of the article. I have attempted to moderate language, but I still feel it could use your touch. Yes, I am trying to catch up and expand the Native American history information - I agree it is lacking. I am concentrating right now on the Kiowa and Comanche, (rich with potential articles and really the most underwritten areas on wikipedia right now for North American Native Americans) and once done, will move on to the other Native Americans. I enjoy working with you, and really appreciate your kind assistance again. I greatly appreciate the pointers, will try to avoid POV lanaguage, but would still hope you would review the articles once done - you have considerable skills! Take care! JohninMaryland (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Anna

John, I tried to fix Santa Anna for you, but ended up making a pig's ear out of it; we've ended up with a substantial history for Santa Anna (the disambiguation page) "hidden" at your new article (which I moved, and will eventually move again, to Santa Anna (Comanche war chief). Please hold off on editing that page for a short while, and I'll go find an admin to fix my mess. Sorry; was trying to help. --barneca (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey barneca (talk)! No worries, I will hold off on editing it until you have it fixed. THANKS for trying to help - I did not know what to do, so posted the article, and hoped someone would help. Thanks again for trying! Hope you are well, and what did you think of the article? I am trying to patch up some of the holes in Native American history on the project. JohninMaryland (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PeaceNT fixed it all. Your article is at Santa Anna (Comanche war chief), properly attributed to you. You may need to fix your link at DYK. I've added a link to your article at the dab page. When you get a chance, please email me. Sorry for the confusion. --barneca (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey barneca (talk)! I just emailed you, and thank you again for your kind assistance. JohninMaryland (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carne Muerte

On 25 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carne Muerte, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) thank you so much! JohninMaryland (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was incorrectly named "Carne Muerte" and should have been "Carne Muerto" (according to the Ford source which was cited). I have moved both article and talk page to the correct named article (now Carne Muerto) and have left a redirect to the old incorrect name (Carne Muerte). The only content that was changed was a correction of the spelling of Mr. Muerto's name in the body of the article. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Anna (Comanche war chief)

On 26 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Santa Anna (Comanche war chief), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Neighbors

Hi John. Congrats on getting two DYKs in one week! I took a look at Robert Neighbors for you. Here's a diff of the changes I made [1]. Some of them are just minor copyediting and Manual of Style things (wikilink full dates but not single years). Overall, the article was much closer to neutral point of view than your first ones!! I removed a few sentences that seemed a little questionable to me, and I removed the last paragraph. I know you really love those summary paragraphs, but a well-written lead should provide an excellent overview of a subject (that's hard on these shorter articles, I know), meaning you don't need a second summary at the end of the article. The ending summary also often tends to sound more POV, so I'd avoid those if you can. I don't know much about the other Indian topics you mentioned, so I have no idea what to name that one article. I'm really enjoying reading your articles, because I'm learning a lot about Indian relations in Texas, and it's an interesting topic. Thanks for continuing to let me know about them! Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I really appreciate your help, and your kind words on the articles. Your help is enormously appreciated, because you really improve the articles. I am a good researcher and fair writer - you are an EXCELLENT writer in addition to being a good researcher yourself! I hope if you have a chance, you will look at the Neighbors Expedition article I posted today. You will love the fact that Indian champion Neighbors best friend was no other than champion Indian fighter "Rip" Ford of the Rangers, and Neighbors took him with him on his famous expedition to El Paso! Incredibly, Neighbors reported to the military - and he was the FIRST MAN TO MEASURE THE DISANCE! - that El Paso was 598 miles from Austin, and that is EXACTLY what it is measured at today! And we use the same road Neighbors recommended in 1849! The article could really benefit from your "magic touch," if you have a chance...Thanks again, and you will really enjoy the articles coming up on the first trial of Indian Chiefs, the Quaker Peace Policy, Old Owl, and more. Take care! JohninMaryland (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meusebach-Comanche Treaty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° Thank you! JohninMaryland (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

You probably know that I've been assessing articles that fall within the WP Texas. I've given many of the articles that you've created "start" assessment, even though I think that they are probably better than 99% of "start" articles. The referencing makes it tough for me to call them "B", but if you feel otherwise I will be glad to upgrade. I'm not that persnickety, so holler at me m if you disagree with my assessment.

Housekeeping matter: when you place project banners on articles, you can omit the question marks after "class" and "importance" (the banner will insert them for you, but will also categorize them as needing attention). Hope this all made sense. If not, holler. Jacksinterweb (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacksinterweb (talk)! I don't have any problems with the ratings you give - I will try to improve the referencing. I did feel they were B level, in terms of writing, organization, and structure, and the referencing is solid in terms of real references, but you are right, housekeeping issues matter. I will try to improve teh formatting of the references. As to the banners, I really did not know. ANYTHING you can relay which you feel would improve the articles, such as better referencing, banners, et al, is welcome information. I appreciate the direction! I know you do a good job, and are trying to improve the project - which is my goal, so I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should have read A housekeeping matter:, meaning "a helpful hint", not as a wag of the finger! Sorry about that. I agree 100% with your gut feeling that they are B quality, thats why I messaged you, my hang up seemed nit picky so i wanted to get your read on this. Great work so far, and I do enjoy reading about history that took place in my back yard (in one case almost literally LOL). Thanks for the feedback. Jacksinterweb (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacksinterweb (talk) . I appreciate your help, and I really mean that, I can use any info you can give on how to improve the articles. Thanks for the kind words on the articles - I felt when I started that that whole era and the Comanche-Kiowa struggle was vastly unrepresented on the project, and I am trying to correct that. I am delighted someone noticed! Again, I don't take lightly format issues, and I took what you said as helping me. AND I APPRECIATE THE HELP. THANKS...JohninMaryland (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Old Owl

On 11 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old Owl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well done

well done

On 12 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Bandera Pass , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Satanta and Big Tree

I think Trial of Satanta and Big Tree sounds a bit more descriptive and to the point (not to mention poetic). Jacksboro Trial sounds a bit more vague than it should: "Which Jacksboro trial?" Jacksinterweb (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening, and thank you, Jacksinterweb (talk) . I like your title a lot better than anything I was considering, and it makes a fine, NPOV, descriptive, title. I asked another editor I respect for her input when I asked you, and will wait for her thoughts as well. Thanks again for your help! It is greatly appreciated! JohninMaryland (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Jacksinterweb's title as well. What do the history books call it? If there is a short name that is used among several reference works then we ought to use that. Karanacs (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Karanacs (talk) - the history books generally call it the Jacksboro Cowboy Trial, or something along that line, as the jury was basically a cowboy jury trying Indian sub-chiefs, (the implication being the chiefs had no chance!) JohninMaryland (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend using Trial of Satanta and Big Tree as the title then, with a redirect from Jacksboro Cowboy Trial. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) and Jacksinterweb (talk) first, let me thank you both for your kind assistance. Secondly, Trial of Satanta and Big Tree it is then, and I hope to have the article up monday. I really do appreciate both of you giving me some input - I think you will be fascinated by the shennanigans that went on at that trial, the politics before, during, and especially after the trial, and the long term ramifications of it. Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Trial of Satanta and Big Tree

Yes, I'd say it probably qualifies (as do, e.g. the Nuremberg Trials). Cheers! Kirill 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kirill - and I was genuinely saddened to see you leaving the helm of the military project. You did an incredible job and will be greatly missed. I appreciated the evaluation of the article on the trial of the Indian Chiefs. I found the subject fascinating when I ran across it, and began researching it for an article on wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Take care...JohninMaryland (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hi John,

Let me know here what infobox help you need. I frankly know very little about them, but am interested in learning and happy to learn at the same time as you, and share whatever workload there is. I've had a change in real world situation, and will be on Wikipedia much less than typical for four months (!), but still plan on working a little every day, and still happy to help out. --barneca (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barneca (talk) Hey my friend, I hope everything is well at home. As for the infoboxes, I will put a list together tomorrow on what needs doing, and we can tackle them together at your leasure! THANKS for the help! JohninMaryland (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Satanta and Big Tree DYK

On 26 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trial of Satanta and Big Tree, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) Thank you very much! JohninMaryland (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas-Indian Wars

Hi John, you are doing great work (and so fast). I'm not going to have time to look at the article again today. I'd suggest that you check with the user who put the tag up and make sure it's okay with him to pull it, and then go ahead if he doesn't have any objections. Karanacs (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! You are pretty impressively fast yourself, and your work is better than mine! I am very grateful for all your help - speaking of which, when you get a chance, please look at Trial of Satanta and Big Tree which I believe is the best article I ever wrote. I am curious to see what you think! On the Texas-Indian Wars I posted a note asking him to review the changes - the editor who put up the tag - 3 days ago. I think he is okay, becasue he was great to work with, and he changed the things he felt most strongly about, and the rest either you or I did. I will wait till tonight, and no one objects, go ahead and pull the tag. I am proud of our work, his, yours, all of us, because we really were a team to correct the things wrong with that article. he was right to tag it, and everyone was great in working on it. I would be really surprised if he is not happy with the result. THANKS AGAIN! JohninMaryland (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde

Hi. I understand your reasoning on the last paragraph of the article, but is there a more definitive source for the statement somewhere besides the Crime Library? My point is that they got it from somewhere, and if that is The Lives and Times of Bonnie and Clyde, I'd much rather see it referenced from the original source. The Crime Library articles aren't always the most accurate in content and research. I'm not disputing that Milner said this at all, I just hate the Crime Library reference, if that makes sense? Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) hi my friend, you have done a great job on the article. YES, Crime Library got the Milner quote out of his book, The Lives & Times of Bonnie & Clyde - which I have. I will go change the reference, or you can, and eliminate Crime Library as a source. Great idea! JohninMaryland (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree. Don't worry about getting all the fine publishing particulars of the book into the reference. I'll finish that up tonight, as I see the book is used more than once. This is my forte on Wikipedia, I suppose, coming in and tidying up and finishing out references. I'm glad the new editor agreed with my changes, as his material was good, it's valid, but it delved a bit too much into the history of the funeral homes and away from Bonnie and Clyde. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) You have done a great job on the article. And you are right as rain on Crime Library - I don't like them either, and would not have used them as a source if I had thought about it, LOL. Speaking of your speciality, I am going to be posting a new article sometime in the next week or so, and would like to ask your assistance, most humbly, in formatting and referencing, because you are better at both by far than I am. If you would help, I would post the new article when you are ready to go over it? JohninMaryland (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help on it. What is the subject? I may be a dolt on some subjects! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) It would truly astonish me if you were a dolt on anything. You are extremely sharp~ But even, for the sake of argument, if you knew nothing on the topic, (and would not then study - which is what I believe you would do), but even if I am wrong, your formatting and referencing skills are truly superior also, and in and of themselves make your help invaluable! Thanks and I will let you know when I am going to post, so you can co-post the article. (The subject is the comanche-Texas-US struggle and the Quaker Peace Plan)JohninMaryland (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, thanks. :) I'll be glad to help with the referencing, but I will admit that it is a subject in which I'm not well versed, although I find it interesting. Just let me know. Meanwhile, I'll prepare for the Indy 500. Wheee! Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) THANKS and hurray for the 500!JohninMaryland (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wellllll, I was rooting for Helio Castroneves. He came in 4th, nothing to be embarrassed over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I've run into something that has confused me on the article. In the section Final run, it says "Though technically retired, Hamer was the only retired Ranger in history to have been allowed to keep an active Ranger commission, as displayed in the state archives in Austin, Texas." The citation links to this page. My confusion is that this section is discussinng events that took place after January 1934, and this warrant of authority specifically says that it is void after February 2, 1933. Sooooo, how does this prove that Hamer was still an active Texas Ranger? Any insight? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, okay, from checking, it appears what the article should have said was that Hammer was the only ranger known to have retired with his commission still active. It had expired by the time he hunted Bonnie and Clyde, according to Milner he did so as a Highway Patrol Officer seconded to the Department of Corrections as a special investigator. Do you want to make the necessary edits to clarify this - and by the way, another good catch! JohninMaryland (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I can certainly tell I'd been up too long when I left the first message. In any case, I'll make the change this evening when I work on it again. I probably wouldn't have noticed it had I not been looking for a reference for something else in the article and read about his leaving the Rangers. Thanks for clarifying it for me!

I have books delivered each month by the library on their outreach program and am due this next week. I have to call in my requests Tuesday, so is there one of the books on Bonnie and Clyde that is the more accurate and definitive? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a great catch on your part. Your edits on this article, and the catches you made on problems have been truly superior work. As to the duo and books, John Treherne's The Strange History of Bonnie & Clyde is generally considered the best, with Milner close behind. I would advise reading both. Thanks again, and I will hollar when the article is nigh to posting!JohninMaryland (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. Another question. I got as far as the controvery and aftermath section and ran into something I'm just positive isn't correct. If you'll look at the diff, you'll see I changed it quite a bit. That's mostly based on the fact that Ted Hinton's book was published in 1979, and he didn't die until 1981, despite the section stating it was published after his death. Meanwhile, the Google books listing for it says nothing about it being written by Ted Hinton Jr. I edited the section to reflect it as written by Hinton himself, at least for now. I have no idea. Then again, I don't honestly know how long it was on the article, but at some point, some time, someone added Joe Montana and someone named Tony O'Halloran to the list of posse members. I'm fairly certain Joe Montana wasn't involved. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) Actually, Ted Hinton died in 1977, (I believe wikipedia's article is wrong on his death date) shortly after completing the manuscript for his book, which was published in 1979, after his death. Hinton had promised not to reveal teh truth while he was alive, and he kept his word. (Book published by Shoal Creek Publishers, Inc., 1979) Obviously, as you caught, (and I did not!) neither Montana nor o'Halloran were posse members. JohninMaryland (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) Ted Hinton was buried in Sparkman-Hillcrest Cemetery, in Dallas, Texas, in 1977. The cemetary can be reached to verify this. (Though we don't have to - his headstone is online!) [[2]] Do you think, given that he died two years before the book was published, that the article should be further edited? Also, would you do me a favor, and take a look at the Ted Hinton article? I corrected the death date, and made some minor changes, but it could use a major rewrite. Do you want to tackle it, or should I, with you reviewing my work? Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing to the section yesterday evening, to avoid the question of the year of death. I did leave it that Hinton himself wrote the book, and not his son. If the book were published by his son, it wouldn't be credited to Hinton himself, or it would at least make reference to an editor. As it is, the book is credited to Ted Hinton and Larry Grove, so I think the section works as it now is.

I'm glad no one has to make a call on the headstone. I'd be happier if you started the work on the Hinton page and let me come in after and do clean up work, and maybe a bit of copyedit if it would be needed. I don't have much in the way of references, except what's online. I know various sources have alluded to a crush Hinton had on Bonnie Parker, and there is a quote of his somewhere which says when he opened the door, he wanted to get sick, but reminded himself of the things they'd done. I wonder if that was more due to his crush on her, and less on the gore factor. I find him a bit fascinating. Let me know what you want to do! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) yeah, I was happy neither of us had to make the call. I went a-googling, and when I found the cemetary and headstone, that took care of that! I had the information on the date, but it was not something I could reference. As to Hinton himself, I also find him an interesting historical figure in the B & C drama. Yes, I think he had a crush on Bonnie to the end, which accounted for his considerable anger, (at least I read his book so), against Hamer for not allowing her a chance to surrender, and his revelation of Hamer's antics in getting Methvin pardoned for the murder of 2 police officers in return for his Dad not pressing charges on the posse. I will start work on the article probably tomorrow, and if you would come in and clean up my edits, it would be appreciated! JohninMaryland (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have my apologies for my tone, I was indeed being facitious. No one in their right mind would expect law enforcment to act this way. Some of us have been prone to use these talk pages as forums through which to direct our anger to those of a different point of view. A practice which evidently is not appreciated. Kaltenborn (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaltenborn (talk) I apologize also. I was unaware of the extended conversations you had with Wildhartlivie (talk). JohninMaryland (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie and Clyde redux

I wanted to call your attention to the conversation between the other editor and I. (User talk:Kaltenborn and User talk:Wildhartlivie.) He did apologize for the incendiary nature of the comments and it seems to be over. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlivie (talk) - Thanks, I was not aware of those conversations, and I apologized to him for reopening an issue which you two had resolved. By the way, you are continuing to do an excellent job on the Bonnie and Clyde article. JohninMaryland (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Blanco Canyon

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Blanco Canyon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^[talk] [majestic titan] 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check what I wrote about the Battle of Bandera Pass

Dear John,

I wrote an extensive critique of the article "Battle of Bandera Pass." Maybe there was a battle at the mouth of the Bandera Pass between Rangers and Comanches but it simply is not possible for it to have occurred as described prior to 1844. Given the paucity of reliable facts (We don't even have a day or date for this!), I feel that this page should be deleted. I've never done any correcting before, so I would ask your input or explanation or advice or critique of my critique as to how to fix this. It appears you have a passion for military history. I'm right there with you, buddy. The first use of repeating weapons by the Texas Rangers is the Battle of Walker/Walker's Creek. We have signed receipts from John Coffee Hays taking possession of the crates of Colt revolvers in early 1844.

Writing scholarly history about the Texas Rangers proves surprisingly difficult. From the facts that we do know, they were cold-blooded killers. They killed women, children and elderly and didn't usually take prisoners. On the other hand, they are absolutely beloved in my home state. This has led to quite a few accounts that are pure bunk. People claiming to be Rangers or having ridden with Hays, Wallace, Burleson, Gillespie, Ross or others. They tell those worst of all lies, the ones sprinkled with a little truth. Makes you want to tear your hair out. The example that brings this home for the Bandera Pass article is that we have a QUOTE from Hays during the battle! And it is the type of thing Hays WOULD have said. The word that he uses which comes through in most of the accounts is "Steady!" No mindless banzai charges under Captain Jack. He demonstrated and demanded his men demonstrate CALM in battle. Not going to hit what you're aiming at if you're freaking out. Be calm, take your time and hit your target. That's what Hays expected.

So, what are we to do? We're given an account of a battle including a quote from the famous leader which is similar to things he actually did say in other fights. The fight simply could not have occurred as it was presented. It SOUNDS good. If dates weren't given at all I might have bought it. Maybe Hays did have a fight there but he didn't use repeating arms there. There is so little forensic evidence of ANY of these battles and, unfortunately, the people who are just out and out lying actually LIKE Hays or the Rangers or what have you. They're not lying because they don't like Hays, they're telling what they want to believe about these men.

I won't re-hash all of my arguments here. You can see what I did on the Battle of Bandera Pass page. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has anything about Captain Jack being surrounded on the summit of Enchanted Rock and managing to fight off a ridiculously large Comanche force but there isn't much scholarly information to support that, either. Look, Jack C. Hays was one of those guys. You don't see them coming. They're quiet and avoid the spotlight. In battle, though, they just seem to come alive. They lead, they fight, they inspire. He doesn't need to have things made up about him. The truth is amazing enough.

Sorry to have rambled.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me:

Lamar Smith 512-217-8474 [e-mail] (No "i" in "smth") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.20.48 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^[talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^[talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]