User talk:Coemgenus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page.

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will watch your talk page and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Archives: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 (1) | 2007 (2) | 2007 (3) | 2008 (1) | 2008 (2) | 2008 (3) | 2008 (4) | 2009 (1) | 2009 (2) | 2010 (1) | 2010 (2) | 2011 (1) | 2011 (2) | 2012 (1) | 2012 (2) | 2012 (3) | 2013 (1) | 2013 (2) | 2014 (1) | 2014 (2) | 2015 (1)

James B. Weaver[edit]

Congratulations on getting the subject article promoted to FA! Very well done! Sarnold17 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for your help with getting it there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Hello. I've left some commentary here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tillman[edit]

Thanks for the review. A subsequent reviewer has expressed concerns, that I'd be grateful if you'd look over.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Australia Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Garfield[edit]

If you want to work on it together, I certainly have no objection. Perhaps we could divide work? I've done up to the Civil War, perhaps you could do the military spell, the election of 1880, and a good part of the presidency, while I focus on the congressional career? You've been there what with Blaine. I think it will take both of us to do the assassination part. That's what people are most interested in. That's just offhand, we can work on it however suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure! That seems like a good division of labor. I've written about the 1880 election so many times now, I could basically do it from memory. And I have the sources to cover the presidency well enough. I'll be glad to take a crack at it. As to congressional career, I don't know what you've got planned, but I thought organizing it by topic, rather than by election, makes more sense, especially with the elections never really being close in Garfield's district. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree,I was planning to reorganize them. The only close election was 1874, when Garfield was hurt by Credit Mobilier and it was a very bad year for Republicans, and he still got 57 percent. I guess the Democrats never got the chance to mess with his district like they did with McKinley. [later note: they did mess with his district in 1878, he responded with the move to Mentor]I have a couple of books on the assassination. Legacy, we'll muddle through. This article isn't as heavy on trivia and pop culture as some, but what there is should be exported to a sub article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's bloated, but not in bad shape. The editor who took it to GA, if I remember, is a good guy, but has been less active of late. Legacy is always tough for Gilded Age guys. It mostly ends with "... and nobody talks about him anymore." The assassination alone makes Garfield prominent to the modern citizen.--Coemgenus (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a decent foundation to work on. I went over to GMU library and got Caldwell, and am reading him on Garfield's congressional career. Also got a copy of Doenecke.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have Doenecke, too, and Kenneth Ackerman's book on the 1880 convention. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have Ackerman's book on the assassination, plus one more on that subject. Kindle.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware of anything that says definitely that Garfield supported the Coinage Act (Crime) of 1873? The biographers choose to focus on the Salary Grab and Credit Mobilier, and they really pick up the silver question later on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's not in Peskin, then no. He seemed unusually devoted to gold, for a westerner, so I just assumed he had voted for it. But I'll try to find a better answer than that. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that he couldn't both have voted against and won the nomination in 1880. I know he voted against Bland-Allison, the refs, both on him and McKinley (who voted for) are clear on that. I'll keep looking too. I'm hoping to wrap up the Congressional stuff in the next few days, and I'll move to the assassination after that. We will have to mention his proof of the Pythagorean theorem somewhere or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This book of legislative history has the bill passing 110 to 13, presumably with many abstentions, but doesn't say who voted which way. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course, there's some doubt that many congressmen understood exactly what effect the act would have ... at least everyone denied afterwards (who had a vote) that they were trying to impose a gold standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The Coinage Act of 1873 could probably be a featured article itself, someday. There's a lot there to write about. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point, and I have numismatic books on it too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about how to organize it ... I think it is worth doing. I'll put it on the to-do list.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm up to 1880. Tomorrow I'm going to start reading about the assassination. The point I left off with, his election to the Senate, seems a logical point for you to pick up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Great. I have Caldwell now, too, as well as Doenecke, so I'm good for sources. This week looks to be busy at my real job, but I should be able to dive in to 1880 before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Assassination, and legacy sections done. I really chewed the scenery in the legacy section, and if you can think of anything else to add, go ahead. I think we're going to need an aftermath section. With your knowledge of Arthur, I think that's your department, focusing on the Pendleton Act of course. I'm going to take some time away from this to do my promised work on Vonnegut, but I'll be back and probably trim the memorials a bit and we can do the usual to hide the seams between what we've each done and make the lede reasonably attractive to the reader. A few more well-chosen images wouldn't hurt. I think it will be quite good when we've done all that. I was a little worried at first just because there's only so much you can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't think Guiteau should be mentioned in the body until we get to the assassination section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, that sounds like a plan. I hope to finish the presidency in the next week and start making all the references look the same. And I agree about Guiteau. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I was thinking the "State funeral, memorials and commemorations" section could be trimmed and reorganized. Do you mind if I take a whack at it this week? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: in the legacy section, you say that Caldwell said something in 1965. I know his book was written in 1931, but reprinted in 1965. Were the words you reference in a new forward to the '65 edition, or just part of the original work? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's my goof. Didn't realize it was a reprint. You might want to correct the cite book with an origyear.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll fiddle with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant source review[edit]

Hi Coemgenus, I removed your request for a source review for Ulysses S. Grant because it's clear there is still substantive article work going on and fresh commentary coming in as recently as today. As an FAC coordinator, I'd prefer to see the source review when article work is complete as a final step before promotion. As a reviewer, I also would prefer to do a source review when I know things won't change substantively. At the same time, I don't want to see you bumped to the bottom of the waitlist, so please ping me when you feel that article work is complete and I will recuse/do the source review right away. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I hope we'll be finished with it today. I'll ping you back when the dust has settled. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@Laser brain:: I think it's all settled now. There was comparatively little pushback, so maybe that's a good sign? Thanks for helping out with the source review, I really appreciate it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm on it! --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder: we still need something at TFA to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. I see Crisco has already scheduled for April 9 and April 12, the two most likely dates. I'd like to ask him to swap this one in after it clears FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I hope that works out. I'm getting nervous about it passing, even though there are no explicit opposes. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen D. Dillaye[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)