User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian

I'll reply to your message here.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,126		Emancipation Proclamation (talk)	Add sources
50		Charleston in the American Civil War (talk)	Add sources
5		Rosemarie Zagarri (talk)	Add sources
1,909		Battle of Blair Mountain (talk)	Add sources
15		Liberalism in Peru (talk)	Add sources
21		Liberalism in Greece (talk)	Add sources
15		Jim Hougan (talk)	Cleanup
177		History of religion in the United States (talk)	Cleanup
30		Inswinger (talk)	Cleanup
419		Moro conflict (talk)	Expand
11		AGEOD's American Civil War (talk)	Expand
201		Internet in the United States (talk)	Expand
3,456		Shark (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
75		Criticism of the United States government (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
78		Discrimination in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
23		Wowpedia (talk)	Merge
345		Countries of the United Kingdom by population (talk)	Merge
94		Health threat from cosmic rays (talk)	Merge
38		Environmental education in the United States (talk)	Wikify
10		Richard Beeman (talk)	Wikify
11		Stephen Nissenbaum (talk)	Wikify
15		Ali Artwork (talk)	Orphan
3		Botigues (talk)	Orphan
2		Antonio Luiz Coimbra de Castro (talk)	Orphan
14		Liberalism in Nicaragua (talk)	Stub
13		Liberalism in Montenegro (talk)	Stub
38		Liberalism and centrism in Sweden (talk)	Stub
4		Caroline Robbins (talk)	Stub
20		Edwin G. Burrows (talk)	Stub
14		Liberalism and radicalism in Paraguay (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Back to work?

TVH, I'm hoping that disgruntled kangaroo court, trying to manipulate the ANI, hasn't discouraged you from continuing to contribute to the discussions and editing. Your academic credentials and years of experience are welcomed and badly needed, just as they were when we cleaned up the American Revolutionary War article. Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And, I'm pleased to see the open footnotes for the ARW are restored. That gives me heart. 21:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Gwillhickers. For once. (Humor) YoPienso (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sep 22

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thanks for the caution. As CaptainEek initiated an edit war by reverting my edit without replying to a 9-day post on Talk proposing changes to the Introduction, I trust a similar one is forwarded to CaptainEek (talk · contribs) and another to Slatersteven (talk · contribs) who both have proposed that I revert an Intro paragraph which has not been altered 'Sixth [last] new Intro paragraph', so there need no reverting one way or the other.

- Otherwise, TWO (2) Article edits have been made to conform to constructive discussion points made at Talk according to WP policy, one (1) by CaptainEek and one (1) by Maurice Magnus (talk · contribs).

At Talk section "Secession" in the WP editorial voice", a consensus was arrived at by four (4) Editors, Hog Farm (talk · contribs), MattMauler (talk · contribs), Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) and myself to avoid interjecting the Constitutionality of "state secession" into the article so as to maintain a wp:neutral editorial voice. The discussion accepted the formulation "declared secession" by Secessionists -- rather than the partisan "states seceded" then existing in the Introduction. That post has aged now for 10-days without a reply to take exception to the consensus.

I structured discussion of my revisions made |here on September 5 following two additional Talk sections without response. The first a 9-day (now 11) aged "The opening", my contributions at "Did the Southern states secede?" supported by Alenscottwalker, the most recent aged 10-days without a response.

Consistent with the 4-Editor consensus of August 28 that would bring the Intro at American Civil War in editorial alignment with Confederate States of America, I crafted a Talk section "Opening in the Intro with my proposed text, to which there has been no response for 2-days since my post to Article main space.

- The Talk section Second new Intro paragraph has no posted objection made by recent contributors: Maurice Magnus, CaptainEek, nor Slatersteven. The earlier text and the revised paragraph are the same for two-thirds of the passage: Decades of political controversy over slavery were brought to a head by the victory in the 1860 U.S. presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, ... so far so good - both revision texts are identical, old and new.

But then a wp:ERROR: Political controversy is said to have been brought to a head by Lincoln "who opposed the expansion of slavery." No, the political crisis came about NOT because of a Republican platform plank from 1956 and 1860, it had not done so in the previous 4-6 years because that was NOT the "tipping point" that brought the sectional crisis "to a head": That is ERROR.

The Secession Crisis comes about because. Fire-Eater Secessionists seized the political initiative in the South by force of arms in state after state during the “Secessionist Winter” 1860-61. And that is the only "innovation" in that passage, a correction of wp:ERROR which editors are permitted to do without consensus, but then there is no objection made the the correction, only a tag-team edit war by CaptianEek and Slatersteven.

- At discussion of Fourth new Intro paragraph, CaptainEek asserts that my revision is "bloated", so I invited him to underline WHERE the "bloat" is to be found in my 144-word revision compared to the 204word Intro paragraph previous.

Both versions account for the Western Theater, Eastern Theater, Emancipation Proclamation, the Union Blockade, New Orleans, the Mississippi River, Vicksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. -- The new revision includes the surrender of North Carolina forces in 60 fewer words: there is no "bloating" in the new Intro revision.

As no Talk contributing Editor has found "bloating" yet, there is no reverting to be done at this "Fourth new Intro paragraph", until there is a substantial objection made, at which time, I will again incorporate suggestions as I have twice before on Talk and at the Article main space.

In the Fifth new Intro paragaph the lead sentence explains that the hard-fighting Confederate soldiers did not simple give-up, they were honorably parolled, and then restored their U.S. citizenship - a crucial key to the ending of regional conflict without protracted guerrilla warfare suggested by some of J.Davis lieutenants.

- Otherwise, there is another error corrected in the new revision: ERROR: "The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in a partially successful attempt to rebuild the country..." it is corrected by the new revision: Post-Civil War America became an industrial giant surpassing Europe in the Industrial Revolution by 1900, but at a social cost that engendered substantial labor unrest.[a]

- The revision that Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has continued in the tag-team EDIT WAR |here has now restored

(1) The previous partisan editorial voice stating, "states seceded", in contravention to the 4-Editor consensus of 28 August for wp:neutral WP voice in the article to conform to that adopted at Confederate States of America, replacing the Talk-agreed to formulation that Secessionists in various states "declared secession" or "adopted Ordinances of Secession" (style) 1860-1861.

(1) the wp:ERROR that a Republican Party platform plank 1856-1860 brought the crisis as newspaper print, not Fire-Eater Secessionists as historical actors,

(2) the counter-factual error that Reconstruction was only partially successful in rebuilding the country, when it led to corporate consolidation continentally and a booming Industrial Age, and

(3) speciously purporting that a 204 summary of military action replacing the concise 104-word revised summary by wrongly asserting the shorter summary is "bloated", without wp:good faith collegial editorial work by underlining said phrases at Talk as I invited all editors, and CaptainEek specifically, to do.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting you is not an edit war, and edit war is reverting multiple times. Nor is bing right a valid reason (read wp:editwear please). Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, please specify by link the three revert examples you refer to at American Civil War that justifies sending me a Revert Warning with your threat to ban me there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

ACW accounting

• Talk section “Did the Southern states secede?” 9pm 26 Aug. ended 7:20am 27 Aug without reply to three points left standing for 6-days before new Intro paragraphs post.

- (1) No need to litigate “state secession” constitutionality, name the historical actors who were Secessionists.

- (2) Of states represented in the C.S. Congress, 77% (VA, TN, TX excepted) used no state-constitutional authorization of men voting to ratify ‘secession’, so their States did not secede, only the named Secessionist actors.

- (3) The mass meeting of Secessionists held at Charleston was declared SC-constitutionally unlawful because the state legislature did not meet at the Capital in Columbia SC.

• Talk section “Secession in the WP editorial voice” 9:01am 27 Aug. ended 8:14am 28 Aug with a consensus by Alanscottwalker, Hog Farm, MattMauler and myself that Secessionists in the Southern states used “Ordinances of Secession” to precipitate war, and “declared secession accurately conveys the unilateral belligerency.

- Points made and unanswered for 7-days before new Intro paragraphs post were

- (1) war did not begin with Ordinances.

- (2) War did not begin at unauthorized militias in each state seizing forts, armories, naval shipyards, or Treasury Mints.

- (3) War began only at occupation of Ft. Sumter prohibiting lawful collection of tariffs, located on territory ceded by SC state by statute and accepted by the US by an Act of Congress. Lincoln called up 75,000 to match J.Davis 100,000 two months earlier.

- (4) And finally, using “declared secession” here would align with the Confederate States of America terminology. There is still no reply as of Revert Warning to TVH.

• Talk section “Opening in the Intro” 7:46pm 4 Sep to discuss avoiding “litigating the Constitutionality of “secession in the United States” in the Article and here at Talk.” With the proposed text using the language “formed by Secessionists and their armies”. Maurice Magnus objected in a revert, [in effect disputing the role of out-of-state armies for KY and MO, and at the Richmond referendum ballot count] and so TVH defers until further discussion.
• Dayirmiter (talk · contribs) here and Maurice Magnus (talk · contribs) here attempt a trim on the Intro paragraph summarizing the course of the war, foreshadowing much of the TVH revision, such as minimizing Emancipation Proclamation exposition (TVH maintained a link-mention for wartime manpower impact-so more aligned with CaptainEek-), dropping enumeration of several Generals by name in the Into course-of-war summary, etc. with the effect of writing a more concise Intro summary paragraph.
• CaptainEek revert of the entirety here, without any discussion at Talk.
• TVH uses “declared secession” 28 Aug Talk consensus here 17:59 Sep 5 “Per Talk, term “declared secession to align with WP Confederate States of America article. …unobjected to for 9-days. Prior to any revert, discuss at Talk to find consensus there, without an Edit War here.”
• TVH posts 6 new Intro paragraphs, with most text taken from existing Article here opened 6-Talk sections for paragraph-by-paragraph discussion at Talk.
• REVERT CaptainEek reverted entire TVH contribution for new Intro text here 19:32 Sep 5 “You entirely rewrote the lead, upsetting consensus wording and topics in numerous areas.” No discussion at Talk prior to disruption.
• TVH amended a sentence [ | here] for 28 August consensus Secessionists declared Ordinances; States did not Secede. “Revert requires an explanation on Talk.” None was made.
• TVH amended a sentence here “Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.” to “Four years of intense combat ensued, mostly in the South as Rebel-held territory shrank.”
• REVERT TVH restored new Intro text (reverted CaptainEek revert) here as discussed on Talk.
• TVH ACCEPTED discussion, amended new Intro text here 20:34 Sep 5 Paragraphing change only, ACCEPTED Maurice Magnus Talk contribution which describes Slavery Territory Expansion issue more concisely.
• TVH ACCEPTED discussion, amended new Intro text here 12:39 Sep 6 to ACCEPT CaptainEek Talk contribution, dropping J.Davis quote, to the effect, Confederacy ceased, state histories became U.S. history.
• REVERT Slatersteven revert entire TVH contribution here 12:55 Sep 6 “Resetting, the changes need consensus” – No discussion at Talk prior to disruption.
• Revert Count: TVH revert 1, Other-Reverters 2. Slatersteven posts a Revert Warning on TVH editor page here with no explanation.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

And read wp:npa, there was no tag teaming. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here (but the way) is the diff for my revert of the 6th [[1]], and there is a reason "Resetting, the changesi need consneus". Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done The "tag-team" is expunged. Thank you for taking the time to itemize the posting you object to, so that I could then address the unintended mis-step on my part collegially, and in wp:good faith because I am given the opportunity to take specifically identified action now and for the future. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

1. The Four-Editor consensus as referenced at Talk and at my Article posts is the 28 August Talk Section: "Secession in the WP Editorial voice". Result: that Secessionists in each Confederate state had declared secession for their state. The stated Editorial rationale for adopting this terminology uniformly throughout the ACW article is that,

- (a) It is better Editorial practice and better historiography to name historic actors participating in an event (Unionists, Secessionists, voters) rather than unspecified abstractions (states),

- especially when the 'states' under discussion are made up of residents. The abstraction may be fairly represented when a super majority agrees, otherwise it is properly described as "divided". In the American democratic-republics in the 1860 states, the political will was expressed by the voting population, and 77% of the states in the C.S. Congress had neither a referendum, nor a Convention elected to decide that the political abstraction "state" might "secede". --- But Secessionists in those 10 states did declare Ordinances of Secession.

- (b) The WP Editorial voice at ACW should remain wp:neutral without signaling "Constitutionality" for one side or the other,

- (c) to align the ACW article to the terminology used at Confederate States of America.

2. IF there were a reason for your revert, why cannot that reason be disclosed at Talk before the Other-Revert-Duo reversion to allow for Editor discussion on the merits? The consensus was formed 28 August, you reverted 9-days later without discussion.

3. If I were at 2-reverts, which I do not believe I am, and which you see documented above without taking exception --- as the Other-Revert-Duo is at 2-reverts in blanking my contributions without commenting at Talk as provided for reasonable Editor discussion - posted in 6-parargraph Talk sections there ---,

How is it that any administrator at the time of a Revert Warning would not post wp:good faith linked reverts related to the warning -- so that there may be either (a) Editor-learning at the event, OR (b) opportunity for reasonable Editor discussion on the merits -- as a GOOD result?

4. Since the 28 August consensus at Talk, denied by the Article page disrupters without discussion at Talk, and since the reverters have made no articulation for the summary blanking of my several posts on more than one topic, nor have they made any reply before the Other-reverters-duo sent a Revert Warning, the Warning further posted without either a general or an itemized explanation,

5. So I am interested in initiating an RfC addressing the three elements of the 4-editor consensus unopposed by a like number at Talk. The stated Editorial rationale for adopting this terminology uniformly throughout the ACW article is that,

- (a) It is better Editorial practice and better historiography to name historic actors participating in an event (Unionists, Secessionists, voters) rather than unspecified abstractions (states),

- (b) The WP Editorial voice here should remain wp:neutral without signaling "Constitutionality" for one side or the other, and

- (c) The ACW article should align with the terminology used at Confederate States of America, "Secessionists declared secession for their State",

Example alternate phrasing: Secessionists in each State declared Ordinances of Secession, or At their Ordinances of Secession, Secessionists in each State assumed State offices and sought to withdraw the State delegation from the U.S. Congress.

Thank you for your patience. I'll get to it shortly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)