User talk:North Shoreman/Archive 4

You don't like spelling?

You sent a message to my IP saying that you have undone something I edited and that I did not contribute. I changed the word "democratis" to "democrats" because "democratis" is not a word. I guess we don't care about spelling anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.41.178 (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct -- see my further response and apology at your talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee

Please do not delete information if you do not know the facts. My edit to Tennessee was correct. Nashville is now the largest city in Tennessee. This is a fact. If you'd like to keep the site incorrect please feel free to change back, but if you want it to actually be correct, shoo shoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.137.114 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

TexasReb 3RR

Do you want to make the report on this? I looked a bit at the template, but haven't used it before. In the few minutes since, he's done several more reverts.

Another aspect of his edits is the highly charged language that is in almost every one of his edit summaries. I thought that was discouraged as well? Red Harvest (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contribution to the Americans article, in which you reverted racially-inspired vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephSpiral (talk • contribs) 03:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Secession winter

I left a note on the talk page of your draft of the secession winter/state resolutions about the Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War article (link on the page) possibly having some useful facts and references. The timeline carries through all of the secession events, including those after the fall of Fort Sumter. Dr. Jensen and I worked on the article some time ago and both of us tweaked it and made a few additions yesterday. Donner60 (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My original thoughts were to include much of the timeline info on confiscation within the sections on the states, but after reviewing it I'm thinking that maybe I should include a separate section under the Lower South reviewing just these actions. Thoughts? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your second thought. I think the sections on the states may get a little long just with the secession conventions and resolutions. They may become too long, and a little confused, with the addition of more topics or incidents. I think the confiscation of federal property can be handled more concisely in a different section or sub-section as you propose. It is a close call, I suppose, but I think it would be more orderly, maybe even more chronological, to the extent that matters, to handle them separately from the State sections.

You may have noted that the timeline lists the confiscations for each State once at the first date, noting the later confiscations and dates in the same item. As I recall, Dr. Jensen thought that would be better than several entries for confiscations in a State.

Dr. Jensen has just proposed to have a blanket citation for a few of the sources which appear repeatedly, simply with different page numbers. It does not appear that he has made the change yet. If he does, and you need a citation or an additional citation for a particular entry (and they all have had at least one) and there no longer is one, you can look at an August 1 edition to get it. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm giving it an attempt right now. It should be easy enough to organize it chronologically -- what I'll be adding to what's included in the timeline will be the decision-making within each state on taking these actions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Democratic Party in the CSA

If your logic about non-existence of the Democratic Party in the CSA is true, we have a real problem of consistency at our hands. What is your explanation for clear party labeling which can be seen at other lists of Confederate officeholders? Please see Vice President of the Confederate States of America and Cabinet of the Confederate States, among many others... Its a well known fact that the Democratic Party was dominant in the South both before and after the Civil War (all the way until 1960s-1970s), and according to all logic it was certainly dominant during the existence of the CSA. You need to tell the name of the source which emphasize the lack of political parties in the CSA, and to remodel all the other lists of Confederate officeholders according to it (if that source is right, which I truly doubt). Removal of the Democratic Party can't be limited to just one article, President of the Confederate States of America, while leaving all the others with party label. By the way, while removing party label at the President of the CSA, you also removed some other data (election year, for instance) which I intend to put back. --Sundostund (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving discussion to the actual article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

C.S.A - Texas v. White

You might look at the Confederate States of America “Texas v. White” section, which Texas Reb persists in trying to expand with a narrative on the dissenting opinion, and which Rjensen opposes on grounds of substance and style. I have attempted an alternative proposal which is much condensed. Your assistance on the Talk Page and in the article main space would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

KIA Civil War Generals

If a soldier dies during one of the battles in the Civil War, and that they died in the southern states, then they died in the Confederate States of America. For example, General Stonewall Jackson got shot during the Battle of Chancellorsville, this meant that he died in the Confederacy, since he got shot at Chancellorsville, VA (then which is part of CSA). If that person died in Confederate territory, they should be considered to be killed in the Confederacy, instead of the United States. Using the example from General Jackson, Virginia at that time was part of the Confederacy, therefore, it is reasonable to say that he died in the Confederacy. However, if General Jackson died in Chancellorsville, VA in 1870 (the year VA returned to the Union), then it will make sense to say that General Jackson died in the US. Please explain to me why my reasoning is incorrect. I really don't understand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.42.78 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an NPOV violation to accept the CSA claims that they had actually seceded over the USA claim that they had not. The Union considered the entire country as its territory. The outcome of the war as well as the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White validated the Union claims. In any event, remaining silent on the issue in the info box balances both positions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I agree with your POV on this. It is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.42.78 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rollbacker

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)– Gilliam (talk)

I swapped your flags for autopatrolled (usually for users that create many brand new articles) to reviewer, as you do frequent patrols. More information on reviewer is below. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln

Fell free to add or modify whatever I left out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol

Thanks for participating in WP:RCPATROL. I thought I might offer you a tip: warning vandals with WP:TWINKLE is much easier than leaving a message manually. Just click on your Preferences, and you'll find it in the Gadgets section. Regards– Gilliam (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Missouri Civil War Page

This article has constantly put the number of Missouri Confederates at 40,000. I was simply trying to restore it to what it had said before. I do not want to be blocked. However, some editors have seemed intent on starting a war on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spradlagg (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Copied on article discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

re Wiki Benedict Arnold Page

Thank you for providing a way for me to contact you. I keep posting links to benedictarnold.info because I believe it's at least as informative as 90% of the Arnold sites on the web. For example, the ushistory.org link is allowed, yet it looks like a fan site and doesn't provide more or better information than benedictarnold.info. Yes, .info is a pro-Arnold site, but why should that disqualify it as a *link*? Surely there must be *some* title for the link that would be acceptable to you. Kindly let me know your thoughts.

Thanks, MrPal1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPal1 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My problem was with this edit [1] where you added the snarky "he B.A. Site Banned bt Wikipedia" -- not a good idea for a new editor trying to be taken seriously. I have checked out the website you want to add and was immediately turned off by the bold headline "The Story You Were Never Taught in School" -- hardly a sign that there is anything of scholarly value at the website. I suggest you go to the article discussion page and make you case as to why the website has value and see if you can get agreement. Four different editors have now reverted your edits so this might be a difficult task. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The admittedly rude "Site Banned by Wikipedia" was because the four other editors deleted my link without comment or any way to plead my case, and I was trying to elicit contact. I thank you for that. However, deleting the link simply because of the sub-head "The Story You Were Never Taught in School" is unfair. The fact is that all that IS taught about Arnold in high school and lower grades is his treason. People are largely ignorant of his important contributions to the American revolution. Without him, it would have failed. It's that simple, but never taught, and www.benedictarnold.info is the result of many months of research. I've read every book on the site's "Books" page, and many articles. If you would read just the "Epilogue" section, you might think better of the site.

Questions: who decides what stays on wikipedia and what gets deleted? Who are the four other editors? Do they have special status? If one of them merely disagrees with www.benedictarnold.info, does that give him the right to delete the link? Can I delete any links I think aren't scholarly?

Also, I don't see a B.A. discussion page.... I assume it's the Talk page--I just posted there. Thanks, MrPal1

MrPal1 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The "View History" button at the top of every page will show you who is editing the page; reversions are generally called out by text identifying them as such in the history list. Decisions in Wikipedia are made by consensus, with reference to Wikimedia policies and the Wikipedia Manual of Style; in this particular case, the external links guidelines also apply. I have responded at Talk:Benedict Arnold concerning your web site, but be aware that the fact that multiple editors have removed your link is an indicator that consensus is thus far against you. Magic♪piano 21:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy edits

Why are you reverting edits? It is clear that the facts of the history are in dispute so "alleged" is a reasonable thing to have in the opening.--129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true. However the bottom line is that your edits have been reverted by at least four editors. You need to make your case on the article discussion page rather than continuing to edit war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true? So you are saying when the New York Times says the facts are in dispute that isn't good enough for you? How can I have an honest debate if you aren't willing to engage but instead hide behind the edit war claim? --129.59.79.123 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You misstate the issue -- take this to the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I had the issue right. I did take it to the discussion page. People like you weren't honest enough to actually discuss it. Instead you cried to the moderators. The correct action would be to NOT undo my edits but instead engage in the discussion. Sorry that was too hard for you to deal with.--129.59.79.123 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Tell the truth -- I did post on the discussion page and you even responded to me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't bother to actually discuss the topic. You said you were right, undid the edit then cried "edit war" to the moderators when YOU were the one undoing the edit. Seriously, if you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground don't edit the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.79.123 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true. Nice language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Your false accusations of edit waring is uncalled for. I have clearly stated my case and followed both the BOLD process and the one revert rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#One-revert_rule If the other editor undoes my revert then he, not I is the one engaging in the edit war. Do not use warning tags as a way to repress dissenting editors. --Getoverpops (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The edits were made in good faith and you were quick to attempt to suppress a good faith edit with a claim of edit warring. I am opening a moderation case regarding the article.--Getoverpops (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true. In that your first edit reverted in part my last edit, you have now made two reverts. Since you are actually only resuming edit warring you conducted as an IP, some administrators (most) might block you right now. Keep walking that line. Please explain to the moderator how adding material that has been discussed in depth for days with EVERY participant disagreeing with your proposals good faith. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would you claim a 3RR based on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Southern_strategy&diff=653330452&oldid=653328646 The only reason why that edit was done a second time (not 3 as you claimed) is because it was reverted at the same time as my other edit, the one in dispute was removed. As I said before that sentence already exists in a second section of the article. Do you feel it should be included twice?--Getoverpops (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. I explained this on the admin board. Info in the lead is often repeated in the body of the article. You need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section -- the lead is the intro to the article so of course the material will also be found in the body. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest the next time you try to have me silenced for violating the 3RR rule, you might make sure I actually violated the 3RR rule.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Getoverpops (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, North Shoreman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Things coming to a head on Confederate States of America

It might be time to get an uninvolved admin to look at the last week's contributions from Texasreb. I'd bet a cuppa the ip editor in the thread above has a sock-like connection to Texasreb... BusterD (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was inclined to directly refer him yesterday for edit warring, but I was on my way out of the house when I saw his latest effort. We'll see how it goes. 12:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just around the time of that editor's block, your page got hammered by vandalism and the ip user blocked. I thought the incidents connected, but it appears the ip disliked your actions at another page. Sucks to be you; you seem to attract such lively company. For the record I've requested a block extension on our Texian friend. Have a good evening, Tom, and know you have the appreciation and respect of your fellow wikipedians. I may find myself in Ohio for business in April, perhaps we could catch a cup of java. I'm hoping to be somewhere around Akron. BusterD (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep -- wikipedia editing is a blood sport. I notice that Texasreb has filed a second request for an unblock -- I got the impression from his comments that he would take it as a martyr. Apparently not. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Danville

Tell me what's wrong, Tom. I thought it would be appropriate to add state names to city names (i.e., changing "Montgomery" to read as "Montgomery, Alabama" etc.) to clarify things for readers who might not immediately know in which state those "capitals" are located. Having done so for both Montgomery and Richmond, it seemed logical to add Danville to the list of confederate capitals as well, because it is my understanding that Danville was briefly the "official" capital of the Confederacy after Jefferson Davis and his people fled Richmond, according to this source: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/warfare-and-logistics/logistics/capital.html --Dan-in-DC (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I gave you a link to a discussion of this very issue. What's wrong is brought up in that discussion. If you want to go against a previously established consensus NOT TO INCLUDE Danville, then the place to start is on the discussion page of the article. I have no problem with adding the state names -- I apparently missed that part. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of a discussion at AE where I used your name

A discussion is taking place at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in which I mentioned your as another who had a dispute with User:Dicklyon (with reference to MOSCAPS.) I became involved in the discussion in a similar manner and was notified, so it seemed appropriate to do the same. Red Harvest (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WHY?!

OK, some parts were a little biased, but the rydonium-and-baradium jetpack is actually out there. It is part of Star Wars, so should I have put it in a different section? Thanks, Ace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.197.79 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are actually serious, then you should cut out your personal opinions about what is "awesome". Anything else you add should have a source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.197.79 (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Your recent editing history at Leo Frank shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gulbenk (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Frivolous posting -- apparently in response to my warning after your third revert. Interestingly, I actually opened a discussion on the talk page for my edits while you have refused to participate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You know, of course, that I have never "refused to participate" in a civil discussion. I have tried to remain respectful and factual, and I would ask you to attempt the same. Please add your comments to the article Talk page, so that we can try to resolve these issues in a less emotional manner. Gulbenk (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

William L. Dayton

The sentence: "There, Dayton was part of a successful lobbying campaign to prevent the government of Napoleon III from recognizing the independence of the Confederacy or allowing Confederate use of French ports" did not sound correct to my ear. "Confederate use of" is the particular questionable element. I made Confederate plural; not the most elegant solution, I know, and you reversed that change. Perhaps the phrase could be amended to say "Confederate ships use of...."? Gadarat (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is that "Confederate" would be the adjectival version of the Confederate States of America modifying "use" -- making it singular. If it still sounds wrong to you, maybe you could rephrase the sentence, "There, Dayton was part of a successful lobbying campaign to prevent the government of Napoleon III from recognizing the independence of the Confederacy or opening French ports to Confederate ships. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dishonest edit war claims again?

What a petty way do deal with our dispute. There is a current neutrality dispute thus a neutrality tag is appropriate. Don't let your political views prevent the system from creating a better article.Getoverpops (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can your 3RR complaint be withdrawn?

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: ). Can you say whether the latest discussion on the talk page means that you and Getoverpops have reached agreement on the item that was in dispute? EdJohnston (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No. The issue is the tagging of the article for NPOV -- the underlying issue goes back to this [[2]. I removed the tag after there was no discussion for three weeks. This was reverted and when two other editors also deleted the tag they were reverted. The original discussion ended because it was basically dominated by Getoverpops -- he generated no concrete proposals and very little support. The original placement of the tag came on March 24 After giving him ample time to make his case, it's time to remove the tag.

He clearly should have been blocked before but the referral went stale. He took this as support for his edit warring. Is the same thing going to happen again? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I should not have been blocked the last time. You were wrong the last time because I had NOT violated the 3RR rule. To violate the rule there must be MORE than 3 reverts. I had only 3. The "last" was a false accusation. The "last" one was where I removed the post of a vandal. Given that even a month later that vandalism hasn't been added back to the forum it was wrong to claim I violated the rules. This time around it is STILL very questionable on your part. I didn't realize the first two reverts were correct because the neutrality review had gone stale, the second two were correct because I brought the conversation back. Sorry, REAL LIFE sometimes keeps us from making changes here. Your dishonest claims about how the original dispute went do not constitute a failure on my part. It's poor form on your part to work so hard to prevent productive edits rather than working to improve the article. Getoverpops (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hugo Barra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hugo Barra. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariana Grande

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leo Frank may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of justice"<ref>http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-906 The Leo Frank Case] Leonard Dinnerstein, the article's author wrote that "the Frank case not only was a miscarriage of

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start an edit war

Please move to talk before undoing edits. You didn't justify why you think my sources are not valid. Getoverpops (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) So far you have accused me of edit warring but you have refused to actually enter into any discussions regarding the CONTENT of my edits. How is it that I'm the one who is warring?Getoverpops (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman Stop Your Disruptive Behavior

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have put a notice on the admin board. Stop your disruptive behavior. Stop deleting, modifying or altering people's messages on the Leo Frank talk page. You have done so to me and you have done so to other users in the past in the archives. Stop changing the substance of what people write on the talk page. Keep your hands to yourself and learn how to control yourself. Also stop making personal attacks against other people as you have in the Leo Frank talk page. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

GBH blocked

Hi Tom, just wanted to let you know that User:GingerBreadHarlot has been blocked indefinitely. This will prevent editing on the Leo Frank page from going in circles, so I'd like to ask if there are any changes you'd like to make now that this user won't revert them and if the tag can be removed. If so, I'll renominate it for GA. It's probably too late for anything on the 100th anniversary, but GA could be a consolation prize. Tonystewart14 (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I restored some old language today. We'll see if it sticks. I think there is one more problem of balance and that involves the issue of racism. The article mentions the defense appeals to racism but omits the fact that the prosecutor made similar appeals. I will have proposed language for both the body and the lead by the end of this weekend (see User:North Shoreman/Sandbox#Racism by prosecution for a preview) and we can see where that takes us. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

74.123.221.202

Could you issue another warning to this editor/block him/her depending on the right procedure?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I referred the IP for vandalism but an administrator turned it down -- seems like he was of the opinion that it wasn't clear cut. I don't really have an interest in the article itself; I was just patrolling new edits for vandalism. I went ahead and requested page protection (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). I'm not an administrator so there's really nothing I can do that you can't. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank 2nd opinion

Hi Tom, I want to let you know that I have requested a second opinion for the GA review for Leo Frank. In addition to your concerns about the reviewer, there still has not been a full review posted after two weeks and I didn't get a response on his talk page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

You were mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ABSURD_WARNING_FROM_Tom_.28North_Shoreman.29 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

East India company

What was the wrong in my edit? Nimesh1727 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You probably should have waited for an answer rather than continue to repeat the edits and get yourself blocked. Extreme, unsourced, randomly placed language will be treated as vandalism every time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank rewrite

Hi Tom, just wanted to check if you were still working on rewriting any other sections of the Leo Frank article or if there's anything else left to be done for GA purposes. I know SilkTork mentioned some of the image descriptions could be improved, and perhaps there are some general improvements left to be made, but I think the article should be good to go for GA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not yet done the section Antisemitism and local and national newspaper coverage. Much of this will be material already removed from other sections. I think it will just involve a couple hours to finish this section and it should be done either later today or tomorrow -- I burned myself out a little with the rest and needed to take a few days off. I think that the removal of all mention of Conley from the lead as well as most mention of the trial -- the main focuses of the article expansions -- may create a problem for the review. I'll probably comment on that on the discussion page after I get this final section done. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. No rush, just wanted to check in. I know it's been a lot of work, so I don't blame you for taking some time off! Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Leo Frank/GA2

As you guys have done a lot of work on the article I started the GAN from scratch to see where things stand. I noted that nothing had been done regrading my concerns with the images; no complaints, as you guys have been busy, so I set about resolving the issues as much as I could. But I stopped after a while because as I was working on addressing the concerns (lack of information mostly), I became aware that some of the images appear to be copyright violations. As I had flagged lack of information concerns over a month ago, I feel that the images must now take priority. Please focus on finding appropriate information regarding the copyright status of all the images, and if you are unable to establish what the status is, then remove the dubious images from the article. Because of the length of time the concerns have already been flagged, and considering that there are potential legal issues here, I cannot allow these concerns to be left unaddressed longer than seven more days. If after seven days there are still potentially illegal images in the article I will close the GAN as a fail. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Leo Frank has been listed as a Good Article. Well done for being one of the main contributors over the past five years, and for playing your part in developing the article.

This user helped promote Leo Frank to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Grant

Hi North Shoreman. More opinions are needed on the Ulysses S. Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarahgilbert18

Warned her earlier this evening, reverted her several times, now I've blocked her. But she isn't the only one spamming this book, a number of new accounts are doing the same thing. And it's a generalist textbook, not a specialist book and I've seen at least one error using it. Doug Weller (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Raised at WP:ANI. Doug Weller (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gilded Age, and the dogged vandal of same

North Shoreman Thanks for reverting this change https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gilded_Age&diff=698721537&oldid=698543525. The person who did it has done it five times from the IP address used for that change, and possibly 10 or 15 more times from other IP addresses. Many editors, including me and Rjensen regularly revert this change to the show the correct information. For one week in late 2015, the article was blocked to IP addresses after a request by me and other editors, after too many rounds of what seems to be a game of vandalism from correct to incorrect information. That gave a rest on the vandalism for one week and some time afterword, and it has started up again. Your edit indicated the person should make a case on the talk page for the incorrect data. I do not believe there is a case, and the person is never speaking up on talk pages. I wonder if another request to block IP addresses for a while is useful now, or if the threats to block the IP addresses whose almost sole function is to make changes that get reverted, to this article and a few others. Doing such a block is over my head, technically and administratively. Messages have been left on the talk pages of these IP addresses, by editors and by ClueBot, and never is there an indication that the person reads the Talk Page set up by others. It does bother me that in an article so widely read, that key information is altered so often, never any reason given. I thought you might appreciate knowing some of the history of what appears to be a vandal, rather than an editor with a case to make. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw your note on the user's talk page just now, so you may be aware of the history from that IP address. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

yes he's a vandal who's a real pain. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your help on the C.S. Army article. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk), 19:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Careful, man

You accidentally trashed my URL by this edit. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank thoughts

I've come back to the Leo Frank article after a bit of a break and wanted to see your thoughts on a few points.

• I'm wondering if Minola McKnight or Arthur Mullinax warrant a mention. I noticed in the GA review you took Mullinax out due to the fact that it would take too many words to explain him, and McKnight is probably in the same boat. I added a paragraph on the Pinkertons and Burns earlier this year as they were also absent, but McKnight and Mullinax are more of a toss-up.
• We could re-add the newspaper article image with the "Police Have the Strangler" headline, as well as the photo of Tom Watson. The latter might not have had an adequate description of where it was published, as it just says it was made in 1904 and links to an online encyclopedia. If you happen to know where it was published before 1923, let me know so it can be added.
• We don't say that Frank initially claimed he didn't know Phagan, but tried to implicate Gantt based on accusations of a prior relationship. The article does mention "a late Monday meeting called by Frank in which he tried to implicate Gantt”. But perhaps we can expand on this. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think McKnight is more relevant than Mullinax since it details the over aggressiveness of the police. Mullinax, if I remember correctly, didn't have any real connection to Frank like McNight did. Gantt could be expanded on I suppose, but I'm not sure that it adds much. My personal preference is to leave well enough alone unless you want to press for feature article. but I'll try to help if you do want to expand things. Right now I'm on a vacation road trip that will likely keep me away from wikipedia other than some checking in (like today) until after the middle of June. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd like to go for FAC eventually, but will wait until you get back to nominate it. Enjoy the trip! Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I made a significant number of changes to the article to polish it up, particularly with regard to the references. I also shortened the infobox, rearranged the last two paragraphs of the lead, added a bit about the Pinkertons (paragraphs 4 & 6 of Police investigation), and added to the Sources section as appropriate to correspond with the References. Feel free to take a look and let me know if you recommend any changes.
• If you think we should add something about McKnight and the police, feel free to let me know as she is not mentioned in the article currently.
• I plan on moving the article to peer review and featured article candidacy shortly. If you have any concerns, I'll hold off until they're addressed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, North Shoreman. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Noticeboard#Cleveland_issues_with_nicknames_in_the_introduction.The discussion is about the topic Cleveland. Thank you. --Nobody1231234 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank OR

Hi Tom, not sure if you saw my post in the earlier Leo Frank section, but I have been working on this article, namely minor copyediting and reference improvements. Another user has been helping me as well, and I plan on going to FAC within the next couple weeks. I want to ask you in particular about this edit in which I removed some text that I did not find in the cited Oney text and appears to be WP:OR. If this is incorrect, please let me know. If you have any other thoughts or comments, feel free to let me know. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the info should be added back, possibly with more detail. The conflicting testimony is on page 236 (Hurt admits in cross that the wound on the back of the head attributed to the lathe could "easily" have come from a "tumble down the factory elevator shaft" [quotes are Oney's]) and page 262 (Child's said the black eye "could have been caused by a lick to the back of her head" [quote is Oney's]). I think it's clear that both injuries are being attributed to the alleged fall (I'm not aware of any other allegations on how Phagan might have received a "lick" to her head), but in any event, the article needs to show that both prosecution claims were disputed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some reference improvements to clarify which pages cited the defense and the prosecution. The first sentence of the paragraph mentions the conflicting testimony, so I think it should be fine as is. If you have any specific text you'd like to add to the end, feel free to do so, although it might wade into original research territory as the text doesn't mention it (as far as I know) and by reading the paragraphs before it might seem out of place. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a reference for the line about Phagan's last meal after that sentence to make it more clear where the 11:00 is cited. I also added lines at the end of that paragraph with the conflicting testimony you mention above. The paragraph now shows that both claims were disputed, and is more specific with regard to references. Feel free to look it over and change any wording or anything else as needed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank FAC

Hi Tom, I wanted to let you know I nominated Leo Frank for featured article status. Feel free to comment if you have any thoughts. Everything we discussed previously should be taken care of, but let me know if anything else can be improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Red Shirts (Southern United States)

The Red Shirts were not "white supremacist" groups, as they had black members <Drago, Edmund L. (1998). Hurrah for Hampton!: Black Red Shirts in South Carolina during Reconstruction. University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-541-1.> The proper title would be "Democrat" groups, as they were formed to aid in the election of Democrat candidates to local and state political offices. The entry needs to be changed if Wikipedia wants to be correct.

KAvin (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know I turned this over to dispute resolution, as I am required to do. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Red_Shirts_.2528Southern_United_States.2529.23Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29

KAvin (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion that might be of interest

A discussion that might be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Woods I'm leaving this message because I think you can help reach a consensus faster by giving your opinion based on Wikipedia "policy". --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

African American

I did not agree not to correct other related articles. Black is an encyclopedic alternative to African American, especially when the person is no American. Stop following me around. Feel free to join the discussion on African American talk page; you've said nothing. Eodcarl (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

South Carolina

Please refrain from removing factual corrections made to Wikipedia due to your own personal bias on a subject. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.2.78 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What "factual" corrections were removed? I simply removed personal bias posted by the writer of the entry. Thank you.

War of 1812

I received a comment from North Shoreman stating that my change on the War of 1812 page had been removed as "not being helpful." The only thing I corrected was the completely erroneous reference that a ship of the line during that period necessarily had at least 100 guns. In fact, only first rate ships of the line bore 100 or more cannon. This is directly quoted from the Wikipedia entry on Ships of the Line: "The most common size of sail ship of the line was the "74" (named for its 74 guns), originally developed by France in the 1730s, and later adopted by all battleship navies. Until this time the British had 6 sizes of ship of the line, and they found that their smaller 50- and 60-gun ships were becoming too small for the battle line, while their 80s and over were three-deckers and therefore unwieldy and unstable in heavy seas. Their best were 70-gun three-deckers of about 46 metres (150 ft) long on the gundeck, while the new French 74s were around 52 metres (170 ft). In 1747 the British captured a few of these French ships during the War of Austrian Succession. In the next decade Thomas Slade (Surveyor of the navy from 1755, along with co-Surveyor William Bately) broke away from the past and designed several new classes of 51- to 52-metre 74s to compete with these French designs, starting with the Dublin and Bellona classes. Their successors gradually improved handling and size through the 1780s.[2] Other navies ended up building 74s also as they had the right balance between offensive power, cost, and manoeuvrability. Eventually around half of Britain's ships of the line were 74s. Larger vessels were still built, as command ships, but they were more useful only if they could definitely get close to an enemy, rather than in a battle involving chasing or manoeuvring. The 74 remained the favoured ship until 1811, when Seppings's method of construction enabled bigger ships to be built with more stability." Accordingly, I cannot see how correcting this substantial error of fact is "unhelpful." Perhaps I should have phrased the change differently, but the substance of my comment is correct. 1805 Eric (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume this [3] is the edit you are referring to. Yeah -- there is a big problem with the way you phrased the edit. First of all, you offered no clue why you were making the edit or what source you might have -- that's what the edit summary is for. Second, you don't start an edit of existing material by leaving the material there and starting your edit with "Incorrect". I suggest you try to understand the basics of editing wikipedia before trying to edit it again. I'll add something to your talk page to help you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand what you are talking about now. I am checking some of my naval history reference materials to find the best description of the British ship classification system (fortunately, there seems to be no usage differentiation between the classification systems of the Western European naval powers as least as regards what was a ship of the line). After I find a clear and authoritative source, I will review the stylistic materials and format it in accordance therewith. 1805 Eric (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Finkelman

Dear Mr. North Shoreman,

Indeed, I am a newbie to the wiki edit. I am a PhD student, and wanted to add to the scholarship of the article. Because the bibliography seemed simple enough to code first, I did that. Then I took a break and went to study how to add to the content.

I am not sure what you mean by substantive. Professor Finkelman, is a well know scholar. And this is what I had hoped to add to the article - a footnote and sentence. Like yourself, I am a mature adult with grandchildren, and my scholarship is the 19th century. I have not done much "encyclopedia" work except with ABC-CLIO, and I have only presented two papers so far during my masters degree. I also worked with the Abraham Lincoln papers for a year at the National Archives. Currently, I am writing my dissertation in a legal history.

The recent election has sparked an interest in the electoral college. Professor Finkelman has been asked to speak in a variety of venues about his early work with the Founders, and his first article in 2002. Please find below what I had hoped to add.

My apologies if I have in someway offended you. I did not understand that articles were ownership. I think of wiki as public domain. And of course I understand the need for proper and truthful citation and editing.

Regards, C. Jackson Gray

Shortly after the disputed election of 2000, law professor Paul Finkelman published the first scholarly article, demonstrating that the Constitutional Convention adopted the electoral college to give the southern states extra power in electing the president. The article noted that at the Convention James Madison had opposed the direct election of the president because the southern states "could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes." Since then other scholars, including ....

Paul Finkelman, "The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College,” Cardozo Law Review  vol, 23 (2002) 1145-1157 (2002) Madison quoted at 1155.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettercap18 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 

Your edit screwed up the bibliography section of the article. You would have seen this if you reviewed how your edit appeared after you saved it. I might have realized you had made a good faith error rather than deliberate vandalism if you had completed the edit summary. Did you make any effort to understand a few basics of editing prior to attempting to do so? My edit and warning had nothing to do with "ownership" -- a charge you probably shouldn't throw around so casually. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North Shoreman. You have new messages at [[User talk:Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1|User talk:Talk:Whiskey Rebellion/GA1]].
Message added 04:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I noticed you are one of the top ten editors on Whiskey Rebellion. The article was nominated for a WP:GA by User:Barbara (WVS) in November 2016. I started my Review in December. Barbara sent me a January 5th Thank You note. I sent her a Talkback about the Review a week ago but she has not responded to or discussed my Review concerns. So I was wondering if you would be willing to work on this article along with any other interested editors so I could finish my Review. Maybe you could take a look at the Review page and let me know? Thanks in advance. Shearonink (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Contentious Phrasing

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to Knights of the White Camelia - I agree with the removal of the phrase. No matter how clear cut it may seem, phrasing like that is generally best to avoid whenever possible, especially when not explicitly mentioned by the source, as mentioned at WP:LABEL. If you disagree, just leave me a message wherever so we can discuss. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved to the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Whiskey Rebellion

On 22 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Whiskey Rebellion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that only two men who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion were convicted of treason, but were later pardoned by President George Washington? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Whiskey Rebellion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Whiskey Rebellion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Whig Party edit

Dear North Shoreman,

I recently changed the word "successor" to "predecessor" on the Whig party entry. I did so because a predecessor is the thing that is replaced, and a successor is the thing replacing it. You currently state that the Whig party was the successor to the Republican Party. That is incorrect. It is not the successor but instead the predecessor. You identified my edit as Unconstructive, but to the contrary, my edit changed the entry from being factually incorrect to correct. I will now correct the entry again. Please let me know if you have questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:373A:11F0:D468:6C49:5699:38FD (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong. I've reverted you again and explained it in my edit comments. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You explained nothing. You simply accused me of "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". This does not explain what is, in your words, "wrong" with the edit I made. Please explain how using the proper word to describe the Whig Party's timeline position compared to another party that came along after it is "wrong". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.2.78 (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Exactly what party is it that you think came after the Whig Party? - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Haymarket affair error

The sentence edited ended mid-thought, where a comma would have been appropriate to connect each part of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ig0448 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Before your edit there were two complete sentences. Your attempt to combine them was sloppy and grammatically incorrect -- you needed either a coordinating conjunction or a semi-colon to make it read properly. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=1R1zIzg92FHco4d_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_9ESIyFSdkKthfGB&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)