This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lwarrenwiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why'd you mark my edits on Alexander Hamilton as "unconstructive"?? I realize that putting a redirect link instead of a direct one can be pretty OCD-triggering or something like that, but come on. You could've simply marked my edits as good faith edits and reverted them rather than report them or something and almost get me banned. No offense,but I found that pretty silly. Sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natekang414 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lwarrenwiki: Ok thanks... yeah sorry I must've mixed up the official title of Columbia U. (Columbia U. in the City of New York) with the undergrad school's name (Columbia College, Columbia U.)
Angelica Church nee Schuyler
Hi, we use to agree on most edits, but with all due respect, I’m not sure that changing the article of Angelica Schuyler Church to Angelica Church was a good idea. It’s not consistent with her sister’s article, which is Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, or even her other sister, whose article is Peggy Schuyler, and makes for a difficilt search: how many know Angelica as John Church’s wife after the musical, honestly. Furthermore, as a woman I strongly object to any woman being referred to only with her husband’s name as if she were owned cattle whose life before the “purchase” is meaningless. Besides, are you sure Angelica Schuyler Church was not linked to in more places than the articles where you updated the wikilinks, both in Wikipedia as well as outside, so that the change has caused what imho is an unnecessary disruption? Looking forward to your comments. Isananni (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Isananni: You make some strong points, and in defense of the bold page move, I can start by offering this:
She signed her own name Angelica Church, which seems to indicate that she didn't take offense at being addressed or referred to in that way. I certainly respect your opinion on this, and I would respect hers if she had shared it. I haven't seen anything in her letters to suggest that she felt that way herself, or would have preferred for historians to include Schuyler when writing about her.
I did a search for every single wikilink to her article. Many were piped to read Angelica Schuyler, and I didn't change that. Those articles still do say Angelica Schuyler.
COMMONNAME has more to do with how secondary sources identify the subject, and I'm not seeing agreement in the article's sources. This move should be reverted and put through RM. Ibadibam (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Isananni and Ibadibam: I see that it's been moved back, in response to Ibadibam's technical request to undo the move. Given the nature and quality of your concerns, I don't plan to request that the move be discussed and reinstated. I will leave well enough alone. Lwarrenwiki (talk)04:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lwarrenwiki: since the article has been moved back to the original title, I have reverted your edits of the wikilinks in as many articles as I could think of. Could you please check if there is anything I left behind? Thank you so much. Isananni (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It's informative to keep track of the way articles are linked elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Sometimes it only reflects the article title as it was when the link was first inserted, but sometimes it reveals a usage pattern that indicates a preference for one form or the other, and might inform a future move discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked (through the use of CheckUser) periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
Thank you for your kind and helpful suggestion about postnominals. I appreciate you taking the trouble to help me and I'll get my mind doing as you suggest.Rcb1 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)rcb1
Hello, Lwarrenwiki. You have new messages at Talk:Alexander Hamilton. Message added 02:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
@JustBerry: Possible, but it isn't likely to be so simple. A WP:SPI over disruptive edits at John Laurens cleared several suspected socks. Turned out that one of them admitted to being recruited on Tumblr, where a large number of high school kids are obsessed with a hypothetical Hamilton-Laurens gay relationship. Not socking, but a WP:SPAPARTY; difficult to prove in individual cases, which may be why the SPI was closed with no action. Lwarrenwiki (talk)23:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Stephen Price (theatre manager)) has been reviewed!
Hi, Michael "Mike" Gabriel appeared in this entry (1980) before you expunged me. I was in the band lineup longer than Tracy Howe (and many others) whom I replaced. I joined and performed as a full member during MWH's first, critical North American tour which we jokingly referred to as "the Shoestring Tour." I supplied some of the equipment that was vital to our sound and endured a lot of hardship during that tour. I think I've earned my spot in this tiny bit of history and would appreciate being restored. :) Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmitageAngel (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed you made substantial content changes to the starship Enterprise article and then marked it as a minor edit. I hope this was in error as your edit summary was great and fairly verbose about the changes you made. StarHOG (Talk) 13:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@StarHOG: Thanks! As you guessed, it was unintentional. I used a script for one of those changes, and I missed that the script checks off the "minor edit" box automatically. Lwarrenwiki (talk)15:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Bundled edits
Hi, Lwarrenwiki. Thanks for your edit at Lisa Littman. One thought to consider: when you bundle a bunch of edits that are essentially unrelated, it makes it more likely that someone might revert based on just one portion that they disagreed with. There's nothing wrong with making a whole series of edits to the same article one after another, each in one localized area, and each with its own edit summary. In fact, unbundling them into separate edits also gives you the ability to give more detail about your intent in a separate edit summary for each altered section. Well that's the way I do it, anyway; you get to do it your way. Just thought I'd pass that idea on, just in case. Thanks for your edits at the article, and on the talk page. Whether we agree or not, I value your input, and always think about it seriously, because it's obvious you are here to improve the encyclopedia. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Likewise! I had thought for a while that consensus there was looking impossible, and then all of a sudden, an outbreak of 3-way mutual respect (User:Freepsbane included) seems to have happened. :)
And you're right about the overlarge bundle. I actually intended to save the bio additions separately, but I was editing offline and by the time I got around to saving the work, it seemed like too much trouble to untangle them, even for me. Lwarrenwiki (talk)11:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the catch. An editor recently split that sentance in The Burr article into two, which changed the meaning. I rewrote it to match the original meaning. I didn’t realize the original meaning was wrong. -- Work permit (talk) 7:10 am, 20 September 2018, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)
@Lwarrenwiki: All of my edits of the Alexander Hamilton article were made in good faith. However, as you know, one of them was factually in error, another unorthodox, but you reverted others that were not flawed. I have no wish to quarrel, but I do believe you have the burden to provide some reason or logic as to why the edits that follow were not worthy of standing.
James Hamilton [later] abandoned Rachel Faucette and their two sons, James Jr. and Alexander, allegedly to "spar[e] [her] a charge of bigamy... after finding out that her first husband intend[ed] to divorce her under Danish law on grounds of adultery and desertion."
<>Later was added to emphasize it followed their move to Nevis?
<>Whether the tag was proper or not, the fact is the MOS requires a source for each quotation.
Thereafter, Rachel moved with the young Hamilton to St. Croix, where she supported her children by keeping a small store in Christiansted. She contracted yellow fever and died on February 19, 1768, [at] 1:02 am, leaving Hamilton orphaned.
<>As a reader, the first sentence above (which I had changed) is unclear to me. Rachel left one place with one son, but arrived in a another place supporting [two] children?
<>I added at in the last sentence because it's expressing the time when an event takes place, and would be used in a normal conversation.
Hamilton became a clerk at [the] local import-export firm [of] Beekman and Cruger, [who] which traded with New York and New England.
<>My addition of "The senior" to the sentence was careless and is regretful. At any rate, this sentence would be better served with the addition of the, of, and who.
<>Which vs. who: In practice, they are used interchangeably from time to time, but some sources say who is preferred when referring to a person or people.Pendright (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright: Thank you for the explanations. Except for two things, I have no quarrel with the points you made above. Please feel free to restore the undisputed edits, but I still take issue with these:
For the source of the quotation, Willard Sterne Randall was duly cited in a footnote. When you wrote "the fact is the MOS requires a source for each quotation", you may have missed the existing footnote, or perhaps you missed WP:MOS#Attribution. The existing footnote citation is perfectly acceptable under WP:MOS#Attribution. (It's true that an inline citation would be better than a footnote in many cases. But not here, because introducing the unfamiliar name of Randall impedes the flow of the paragraph, with no balancing benefit to the reader. That's because Randall is little-known, just barely notable, so naming him in the article body is clutter and trivia to most readers.)
"Beekman and Cruger" was the name of the firm. That business entity takes "which". If we were instead writing about "a firm owned by Mr. Beekman and Mr. Cruger", two individuals, they would take "who".
