User talk:Edfranks

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

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, Edfranks! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

IPBE granted; caught in unrelated rangeblock

Request handled by: Shirik (Questions or Comments?)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Korean War[edit]

Hey Ed, I too have always found the Korean War article to be underwhelming, let me know if you have any questions or would like any help in cleaning it up. - Schrandit (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

edit undo frustration[edit]

from time to time i stumble onto articles that contain blatant bias or suspicious assertions and sometimes i end of spending much time making a one or two sentence "careful" edit, and duly note it, only to discover weeks later that it was undone almost immediately (usually not for a good reason) and sometimes it seems the undo is by people determined to maintain the article's current defects at all costs. is there any way to get a better idea of who and what the problem is with my humble edits? i rarely have an overt agenda in any of my edits, other than to promote careful assertions and ensure balance and accuracy. i.e., i am not otherwise on a "mission," per se. (i suppose they all say that?). frustrated edit ed. (i dont even know if anyone will see this?!)

Bragg's alleged right flank offensive[edit]

Hi. Thank you for the updated citation. I will need to do some more surgery on this--probably tomorrow unless you would like to do so first--because the appropriate place to raise this issue, IMHO, is in the section earlier in the article entitled Longstreet departs. Steven Woodworth bears the distinction of being the only professional Civil War historian who has ever asked me to make a change to an article. (It was an odd situation because I was quoting one of his works, but he decided that he had changed his mind since he wrote the source in question.) I appreciate the input from folks like you, although I have found that historians generally treat Wikipedia the way vampires treat crosses. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with u completely. It should be mentioned earlier, I have just been too busy to address it. I would love it if u could tackle it. Interesting that u heard from Woodworth about a change. Do u remember which issue it concerned? I know that after we worked together back in mid-90s on a couple of projects, his views on this campaign did evolve a bit, especially in relation to point of view in his "Jefferson Davis and his Generals" book (I think that was the title?).

No, I have been trying to think what it was, but cannot remember the specifics. It would take me too long to be a detective and find the edit, particularly since I don't remember exactly which article it was in. I think it was a quote about Bragg, which I quoted accurately, but told me he changed his mind in the time since he wrote it originally.

One area that I worked on in detail years ago was the detachment of Longstreet. I was surprised to discover that there was a lot more going on than just Bragg being happy to get rid of Longstreet, per the conventional wisdom. Hallock's book first alerted me to some of these issues, and Woodworth seemed to embrace her concerns as well. Longstreet, it seems, mucked up everything from extending Bragg's left flank along the river, to Brown's Ferry, to Wauhatchie, to the fiasco at Knoxville. And there is no shortage of contemporaneous sources to support these observations, even in the OR.
BTW, I consider myself (humbly?) an historian (PhD Economist by training - financial history), but I think wiki articles are excellent 90% of the time. Even when it comes to the always controversial civil war, most of the articles are surprisingly balance, IMHO.

My theory is that since Civil War history is actually a lucrative profession for some popular writers, they don't like the competition giving away the goods for free. :-) I have friendly relations with a number of big Civil War historians and when I mentioned Wikipedia their eyes cloud over and they simply, although politely, refuse to have anything to do with it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My changes to your changes?[edit]

I cleaned up a little bit, although I don't think I changed anything substantive. One of my styles is to place all footnotes at the bottom of the paragraph, wherever possible; otherwise, it can become confusing about which footnotes cover portions of paragraphs. The only remaining open question is why you changed the name of the railroad. Woodworth called it the East Tennessee and Georgia, which I believe is the correct name for the railroad going from Chattanooga to Knoxville (although the portion from Chattanooga to Cleveland was originally a separate company, the Chattanooga and Cleveland Railroad). Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Abu Zubaydah because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Would you please make your signature comply with WP:SIGLINK. You may have inadvertently ticked the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box at Special:Preferences. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand. I've made no changes to my signature for years. I'm happy to fix it but I don't understand what precisely I need to do. Are you saying I simply need to untick the box beside the words: "Treat the above as wiki markup"? I don't think I've touched that box ever, but I'm happy to untick if that's what's required. I notice your signature is embedded per the WP:SIGLINK discussion. I'm not sure how to do same for myself, though I think I see the advantage of the siglink methodology. Anyway, please give me just a bit more guidance. Thank you. Edward Carr Franks, PhD 04:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've unticked it, for better or for worse. I hope that helps. Edward Carr Franks, PhD (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject, it does help, because your signature now provides links to your user page and your talk page. This is apparent upon visually comparing your before and after signatures above. It's quite possible that it has been incorrect for years and no one bothered to call it to your attention. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got the gist of it now. Thanks. Edward Carr Franks, PhD (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)