User talk:North Shoreman
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.
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)
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)
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)