User talk:North Shoreman

Archive 1

Recommend posting to ACW Task force

Hi Tom, just as a thought, you may want to post to WP:ACW about the pending History & geography comment since many of them are familiar with Ghost and these issues and will be interested. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Great Train Raid of 1861

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Train Raid of 1861

You have the patience of Job. Is there anything specific you want me or others to do? I can't volunteer for any formal mediation role because I've had disputes with GG in the past. It is amazing to me that educated people cannot understand what secondary sources are and what a fundamental role they play in Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best thing to do is to make a solid, simple proposal that would allow folks to respond with a clear "yes" or "no". My general concept of the article is expressed in my reply to the section on the article's talk page "7 Purpose of Wikipedia - a reminder". While reasonable people may have differences on some aspects of it, I think the basic format of LEDE, MAIN BODY OF ARTICLE (the more numerous version), and then CONTROVERSY is pretty much consistent with common Wikipedia practices. I think the important first step is to get the entire subsection "6.3 List of historians believing the locomotive raid true" out of the article. If it has information of value then it should be presented in the body of the article w/o all the OR about what it proves or refutes re Robertson. Unless something else develops in the next couple days, I will probably propose something as a "Request for Consensus" on the discussion page and see what happens -- I find it difficult to believe that anybody will argue that the section remain. If you have ideas along this line let me know. Thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your approach is fine with me. The table of agreeing sources is completely inappropriate. Ghost should be challenged to find secondary sources published after 1997 (after Robertson's book) that dispute Robertson's conclusions, not to travel back in time to find older secondary sources and obscure primary sources. Certainly anyone writing about Jackson after Robertson's book came out would have something to say on such a blatantly controversial conclusion in a book widely considered to be the definitive bio. By the way, when writing in the ACW space, it is better to avoid the abbreviation OR in correspondence unless you mean the Official Records (I assume you are using it to mean original research, but others might not). Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary work, dude. FTR, BusterD (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting odd messages

I'm getting odd messages telling me I've vandalized pages I've never visited, I don't know if it's the error of it's someone else on the college I go to or what. It just seems so strange. Here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.129.115.2&diff=cur Father Time89 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Zachary Taylor

From the history of the article on Zachary Taylor, you appear to be a notable contributor to it. As a result, I thought you might like to get involved in a discussion I have started on the talk page concerning a proposal to change the main picture in the infobox: [1] If you do get involved, thank you. Terrakyte (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

Tom- I recently received a message from you concerning my editing of a page. I am a frequenter of Wikipedia and throughly enjoy using it as a means to satisfy my ever growing questioning. I (as almost any person does) despise mis-editing. I use Wikipedia as a base for many of my facts and do not enjoy being ill informed. I am a college student, and leave my computer in my room. Therefore, I assume it was one of my friends who edited the "Confederate States of America" page. I would like to apologize for this wrong doing, and the inconvenience which you had to go through to correct it. History of the South is an area of great interest to me, and I can see that you have edited many pages on the topic. I'm glad to know that we posess a similar interest. Any new information you might have for me concerning the subject, I'd be interested to hear. Again, my most sincere apologies for the editing.

                     Sincerely, 
                          Gray Bryant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.247.50 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 

AN/I

As a courtesy, I need to let you know that I've brought your name up at AN/I with respect to possible sock puppetry at SPLC, but with the note that I don't think it's likely that you're directly involved. arimareiji (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:86.46.202.50

I've not made any edits while not being logged in, could you direct me to the supposed edit from this IP? (User:86.46.202.50 aka user: BluSonic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.202.50 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were able to figure out that I placed a warning on your IP account about vandalism, then you should be able to check out the "User contributions" tab on either the side or the bottom of the page where the warning was placed -- click on this and you will in fact see that your IP did make an edit. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

re: on my last entry to pushing POV

should that have more appropriately been sent to an individual talk? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mohawk Nation =

hi Tom, the POV you keep reverting to does not apply to the Mohawk Nation. Other Indian population may meet your pov but the Iroquois, Six Nations, & members do not. The sub-civilizing POV is a product of 19th & 20th century ethnocentrism. onen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.95.71 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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 are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• 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, writing contests, and article logistics.
• 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.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies ^talk 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You get one of these when you join the main project ... not trying to teach you to suck eggs :) Welcme aboard, Tom!  Roger Davies ^talk 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		For the many helpful edits to American Civil War-era articles you have made in months past, I welcome you to the ACW Task Force with this barnstar. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism patrol

Hi Tom! I noticed your recent reversion on the 1918 flu pandemic article and the IP user page. I reverted to the IP version, and left the IP anon a note. I did this after checking the artist's Wikipedia article and noting that the cause of death is listed as stroke and pneumonia. Of course, the flu might have been involved, but it's not in the article. It appears to me that this is a "good faith" edit, particularly if the anon was looking for consistency within the encyclopedia itself. Best wishes, and good vandal hunting. WBardwin (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As a former IP user -- please don't assume that the same person uses the same IP for all edits. Most admins know that IP's can be assigned randomly or are used by institutions. While I don't completely trust internet sources in general - the rate of error on historic issues is very high -- your documentation on the cause of death should be used to update the Klimt article. And as I sent you a polite note, I would appreciate the courtesy of a polite response rather than a lecture. WBardwin (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reedited the bogus Oklahoma Land Rush comment, the year that the Oklahoma land rush taken place was not 1992, but a century before in 1892. Unless the anon IP poster was joking about a "land rush" when it comes to real estate in Oklahoma of the 1990s, I guess that edit of mine was useless. My apologies if it appeared to be a form of vandalism and I never want to get in breach of any rules on wikipedia. Have a nice day. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you don't use edit summaries. Snce everyone makes mistakes in their editing from time to time, including edit summaries, among other purposes, allows people to know your intentions and more easily diferentiate between good intentioned edis and vandalism. When you find factual errors on discussion pages, the thing to do is to add your own comment on the page rather than editing another editors comments. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was reverting to a previous revision using huggle, due do a couple vandal edits. I did not relilize that I reverted still more vandalism. I removed it, and now it is free of vandalism. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Huggle...Tom, you do quite a bit of reverting vandalism...have you considered using an anti-vandal tool like Huggle (for Windows) or Twinkle (for Linux) to simplify things for yourself?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 03:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln and religion

Messages left here moved to the discussion page of Abraham Lincoln. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Hello, just noticed your wise revert on the changes made to the Abraham Lincoln page. Would suggest blocking this user, as his behavior on the talk page suggests that he's not interested in anything but making mischief. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 23:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Emancipation Proclamation

Generally, accusing someone of vandalism for an edit that removed vandalism is considered impolite. If you had looked through my contributions or browsed my talkpage you would have seen that I am clearly not a vandal. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)