Jump to content

User talk:North Shoreman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownBot (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 17 May 2011 (→The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 Archive 2

Sourcing Problem (Picked You Up In Recent Changes)

I just created Kentucky Route 30 and put in a source. Only problem is that even though the link DOES work, when you click on it it says the page can't be found which isn't true. What's wrong with it? -WarthogDemon 21:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just figured it out. Sorry for the bother. Happy Editing. :) -WarthogDemon 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential vandalism by 192.193.171.155

Hi, I saw you reverted an edit coming from IP 192.193.171.155. The same IP made another apparently destructive edit, then a dubious one, without adding any reference. Can you please take a look? PS: That IP's talk page had a banner mentioning it was shared by Citigroup, but the last version has undone the revision that added that banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. You have the same abilities to revert these edits, issue warnings, and request administrator action against vandalism that I do. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I did make my references and I will do it again, type in Barry Soetoro in the search box here and you will see obama birth certificate will come up. He is hiding behind this name and no one cares till more americans die. besides if this is a glitch it needs to be fixed or let people know when they type in barry soetoro and that obama birth certificate page comes up need to have a disclosure that it is a glitch and it is in the process of getting fixed. It is not vandalism when one is speaking the truth like you know I am. If I am lying then i will no longer correct anything ever again. Barry Soetoro is Barack Hussein Obama Junior that produced a certificate of live birth with african as his dad's race and african is not a race africa is a country. Someone needs to fix this before this country is so divided we will never be the united states of america again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djchillman (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User templates

You may be interested in one of the following templates:

Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantrill's Raiders

Thank you for your copy edits and reference work on the article Quantrill's Raiders. You have, by your edits, cleaned up most if not all of the NPOV issues I had with the article. I know I did not have the resources available nor the time at the moment to do much with the article; but I was pretty sure that someone would if I tagged it. My editing doesn't involve Civil War articles but only as they are co-incidental the the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service and the revenue cutters that operated during and immediately after the Civil War and almost all my reference materials involve the USRCS or it's successor agency, the U.S. Coast Guard. As a Kansan interested in Kansas history I realize that the origins of the Civil War began as far back as the Missouri Compromise and later with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. As a Kansan, one is sometimes referred to as a 'Jayhawk' and that is how I ran across the article on Quantrill's Raiders. It was interesting to me, but I saw NPOV issues with it. Anyway, thanks for your edits and when you feel that the article has been edited enough to warrant removal of the tag, you certainly have my blessing. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion

The following subcategory of the Category:People from Boston, Massachusetts has been proposed for deletion: Category:People from 20th-century Boston, Massachusetts. A link to the discussion is provided at the top of the subcategory page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Missouri

There hasn't been much activity at WikiProject Missouri or any of its child projects lately, and I saw your name on the list of active participants. If you are willing to jump in again, please consider helping to revive the project:

If you know anyone who might be interested in Missouri (its history, culture, sports, people, places, architecture, etc.), please pass this message along to them! If you are still interested in the project but aren't currently active, please add yourself to the list of inactive participants at the bottom of this list. Thanks!

On behalf of the project,  fetchcomms☛ 22:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March Coordinator elections

Would you consider putting your name in the hat for Military History project coordinator during the March election cycle? I'm going to nominate myself, not because I'm especially qualified, but because us ACW folks have been keeping a low profile for too long. You're on the shortlist of ACW people I think would be suitable. Plus it would be more fun WITH you. I've even asked Hal, but I suspect he'll shy away, like I usually do. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't consider my solicitation to be any form of advertising for my own pending offer. I just know editors I regard as reliably sensible and trustworthy. You're that guy. All the best. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello North Shoreman.
Since you do a lot of AV work, would you like me to request that you get rollback? It is much faster than undo. Give me a shout if you want it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of secession

Hi. I think you are doing yeomen's work in the talk page of American Civil War. One suggestion I would make is based on the premise that a lot of people do not pay close attention to the detailed arguments of an article and instead focus on superficial things like the information box and section headers. The first section of this article, Causes of secession, is really a jumble of topics which is divided roughly in half by a subsection, Slavery--even though slavery is discussed before that subsection. It is quite possible that people are looking at the table of contents and objecting to that being the only subhead. Barring a reorganization of a lot of content, simply removing that subsection header might dispel a number of the objections we've received over the years. (I continue to maintain that the antebellum portion of this article is too long when you consider that there are three subarticles that expand on all of the topics raised, but since I am not willing to take on the task of distilling it, this will be a silent objection.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of your ideas regarding the subsection label and the length. The length issue has been resisted but I note that there is a small (at this point) group (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Operation Brothers at War) that has raising the article to FA as a goal. If that project gets off the ground then these issues will need to be addressed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that task force is going to have a very difficult time. It is a big challenge to achieve a rated status for an article if you are not the author of said article. And this one will be particularly contentious. (I have been following the recent, painful progress of Ulysses S. Grant and it has been a real mess.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on policy

There have been regular difference of opinion in article deletion debates regarding NPOV application. It's an intersecting of WP:WAX the final entry on legitimate usage, WP:BIAS and the current reading of WP:NPOV. I hopefully summarized my case effectively here. Alatari (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello North Shoreman.
I asked you this earlier, but it got archived before you saw it. Since you do a lot of AV work, would you like me to request that you get rollback? It is much faster than undo. Give me a shout if you want it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion Sought

Can you row over to:

User talk:Mwgf79#Sterling Price

I am seeking other opinions on this. THNKS. (Keep your prop clear.) > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

congrats

Nice work on finding a compromise that could gain consensus on the contentuous SLPC lede issue. Well done! --j⚛e deckertalk 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And look how long that consensus lasted!! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re TexasReb edits on Confederacy article

Hi Tom. I have watched the edits on the article for the past week, and I thought I had a resolution to the issue, and posted a short quote from Kenneth W. Noe, a very respected historian, re: civilian prisoners. I thought this would end the repeated editing, but within a half-hour my edit was reverted by Rjensen. I restored my edit, which I think is fair, and I hope you will uphold it, as it is quite valid and relevent. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you figured that adding this material twice without discussion or consensus would resolve an edit war. I have explained my reasoning on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help with a page number at Leo Frank

Hi Tom. I understood from your notes at the LF Talk page that you have a copy of the Oney book, And the Dead Shall Rise. I don't have a copy, and I'd like to add it to the citations for Judge Roan's key statement, "Gentlemen, I have thought about this case more than any other I have ever tried.... But I do not have to be convinced. The jury was convinced." At this diff you can see the ref where I started to add it: it's in the currently renamed (sigh) Appeals section. If you have a copy, when you get a chance would you please fill in the page number? (I realize more than one cite isn't necessary usually, but this situation is different, at least for the time being.) Thank you. -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to, but I'm out of town this weekend -- will check on Oney when I get back. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cites there now turn out to be plenty, Oney isn't needed after all, for this one. So you don't have to put on your Wiki shoes just yet. But thank you! We'll pull this thing into shape yet -- and under 80k -- do you think? :) LaNaranja (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

vandalism

Tom (North Shoreman)

I think one should look up what " vandalism "and what it falls under and should this thread link go further up the food chain ? ? --Kimmy (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating your plagiarized, POV edits is not vandalism. I believe I am the fourth editor to address the inappropriateness of your edits. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Sorry Tom for being a B**** the other day I was out of line - you were correct - --Kimmy (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Rights Movement

Hi, in my comment at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)#Proposed_Move I've informally suggested Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968) (etc.) as an alternative. What do you think of that? (replying there, if you choose to reply, would be preferable to me - thanks). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank

Hi Tom - Not sure if you are willing to enter the fray on this article, but I am very disturbed about the reliance on journalistic details, first-person quotes by Tom Watson especially, and general sensationalizing of the content, with so much detail you can't tell what the issues are. I've suggested deleting 2 of 3 photos of the lynching (enough already! I know what they meant; that doesn't mean we have to show them), and have found at least two copyright violations, so there are probably more, in editors' attempts to have it be "colorful". It is not up to one or two editors to assume they own the article. It is far from an encyclopedic article in tone.Parkwells (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, North Shoreman! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am trying

North Shoreman,

I am new to this process and am trying to follow the correct process. As to your reference to a COI, there are two sides to that. One is a "potential" conflict of interest the other is the experience and knowledge gained by being an active participant. On the other side there is also a COI on using the SPLC as the gospel so to speak as has apparently been done (at least by observing the content). The SPLC uses such classifications as the basis for a very successful fund raising effort and is promoting an idealogy. That is their right, but we also have a right to fairly represented in Wikipedia.

Anyway, thanks for letting me know to use the discussion features and please let me know if I stil have not got the hang on it.

Thanks (assume that I am supposed to use the four tildas istead of my username) MichaelCrane30560 17:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelCrane30560 (talk • contribs)

Trent Affair

Have you considered taking Trent Affair to FA? I'd certainly support it, it's a fantastic article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I adjusted the header you left for a warning (dated today) from the error of 'January 2010' to the correct 'January 2011'. Hope that's ok. Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies!! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good Faith / "Edit Warring"

You appear to be in violation of the Assume Good Faith principle (one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia) with respect to your comments regarding this edit made to the Confederate States of America article. This edit, made by anonymous user 99.157.58.170, was incorrectly reverted by the ClueBot NG robot as "vandalism" when in fact it was a good faith edit; correcting this erroneous characterization of another editor's edit (made by a robot and then made again by an overzealous human editor, Breawycker) is not "edit warring". Please review the Wikipedia policies in question, and have a wonderful time editing Wikipedia! 184.36.90.183 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your reasons, you reverted the same info. three times. It was edit warring whether you were right or not. In fact, the edit in question may or may not have been vandalism, but it was certainly factually inaccurate and you repeatedly reinserted the factually inaccurate material. I properly issued a 3RR Warning to you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Sumter, Operation Brothers at War

Sir, my compliments on all the great work you've done on a variety of Civil War articles. I see you've done a good deal of work on the Battle of Fort Sumter and just wanted to flag you on a post I've made here regarding getting this article up to FA in time for April 12, 2011. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. And it would be outstanding to count you among the editors on the project if you are so inclined. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy noticeboard

Hi, you're mentioned here (: BE——Critical__Talk 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal

I am still willing to work toward consensus on a mission statement for WikiProject United States. Your comments correctly suggest that there are underlying problems beyond the mission question. Accordingly, I have taken the passage that you quoted about WikiProject communications and drafted text that could be included on the project page requiring that we discuss and at least 5 people agree to any communications sent to other WikiProjects and their members. While I understand that you and many other people want to work within the context of WikiProject United States without making life difficult for other WikiProjects, there needs to be a mechanism to curtail unilateral actions by any one individual purporting to communicate on behalf of the entire WikiProject. Please look it over. I posted it two sections above your post so that it will be an official part of the RFC. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject United States

Thanks for your efforts in trying to keep things civil in the discussions and I apologize that I am beginnnig to lose my patience. I have attempted to be civil for a long time and they just keep dragging the discussions out longer and longer and longer presumably until we finally give in of give up. --Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation reported

I am placing this notice on your page because of your prior involvement with User:Markglad and the article Thomas Jefferson. After responding to a request for third opinion I placed the article on my watch list, within hours I noticed the occurring of constant reverts. After viewing the article history, it appears that four editors(including yourself) have been reverting unilateral additions by Markglad against consensus. Viewing his edit history, he seems to have very few edits outside of the edit war on the Jefferson article. I believe this to be grounds for a block of some sort so I have placed this matter before the administrator's noticeboard. If there is anything you can add to the report there, please do so. nonsense with thisSalegispeaking drivel! 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- you beat me to it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See what I have been dealing with

I'm sorry to say but I think you are starting to see what I have been dealing with continuously for the last 3 months and why I finally got fed up. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating proposal

Tom, I am making a good faith effort to meld your ideas with those of Casliber and others. Please read through my explanation of the differences between the two proposals and also think about what other comments have been left on the page, including the new ideas from Hjal. I suggest that we wait until late Friday night (e.g., 11 p.m. EST) to give everyone a chance to read the page and new material that has been posted. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to the proposal you submitted that everyone seemed to agree on. Mostly little punctuation and grammer things but some did include some comments made by others that I agreed were good improvements. I used Cquote just so it looked different but feel free to change it to quote or whatever other changes you think are needed. I think we are finally getting close to getting this issue wrapped up and thank you for your help. --Kumioko (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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. Thank you. I am asking for full page protection. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A passing comment

First I want to thank you for stepping in and trying to calm things down. I also wanted to let you know I am personally going to try and limit my responses to RP since it only seems to encourage him to leave more and more unnecessary discussions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on the Importance rating

I hope you don't mind but there was a suggestion regarding using importance for a couple projects including the Smithsonian Collaboration and Public art about better definitions of importance and I suggested looking at the ones you made (replacing the United States with Art as appropriate) as a guide. I hope you don't mind and just wanted to let you know that your work is being appreciated by others outside the project as well. --Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never specifically mentioned you by name..but you may want to take a look ;)

Hello. 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. Thank you.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

Hi North Shoreman, a lot of your contributions fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

That's a great feature, I didn't know it was possible. Jnast1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations and False Contributions

You accuse me, on my talk page, of engaging in an edit war. It takes two to have a war, Tom. So, by accusing me, you implicate yourself; or are you just a liar? Assuming, arguendo, that we are at war--who fired the first shots and the last? Your view must prevail or you will take hostages and burn the house. You demonstrate just how unreliable the product of this enterprise can be. Thanks to you and your Cabal, I will never take anything posted at Wikipedia at face value.74.192.7.135 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

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) 04:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The May 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.

 
. --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

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) 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:North_Shoreman&oldid=429640699"