Please start any new topics with a == descriptive heading ==.
While Wikipedia may not be censored, my talk page sure is. I have the right to remove any images and/or comments that may be offensive to others or myself. If I remove a comment, please don't add it back.
I will always respond here, unless you ask me to respond on your talk page. In that case you may want to watch my talk page. Please note that this last request is a big one. I do not want any conversations to be broken up in between two or more talk pages.
If you're here to attack me, accuse me of sockpuppetry (for the X time), provoke me, or anything else that violates WP:CIVIL, you will most likely not get a reply as I don't really care.
On a side note, if you're wondering why my signature changes all of the time, I do it because they are all verses from Coldplay songs.
Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks John. Happy New Year to you too and thanks for the whiskey, though I don't drink ;) All the best during this new year and decade,--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 05:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your rollback
I'm not going to revoke it- you do a lot of good work and this was one messy incident- just please be more careful about what you are restoring when you use the feature. Moreover, you seem to recognise how things could have gone a lot better here, just be more careful, please. Courcelles 06:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly will Courcelles. To be honest, I should have looked further into the issue when I stumbled across it. Just another example of my "feet first" actions :P Thank you for the kind words. All the best,--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm afraid I have removed your GA review. That's not to say that it is a bad review, just that it isn't a particularly substantial one. Only reviews, as opposed to the likes of quick failing terrible articles and rubber stamping excellent ones, can be used to claim points. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, White Shadows. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page. Message added 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, White Shadows! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one who made these maps...I merely uploaded them. I know perfectly well that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist by the time WWII began but apparently....the publisher of these maps seems to ignore this fact....--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 22:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issueWikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:
and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.
You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page.
--Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, —WFC— 10:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've been working on this article for a few days now, by adding in info from Welsh's book and reorganizing some sentences ect. I was wondering if you'd be interested in trying to promote this article with me to a GA and possibly an FA any time soon. Considering that you are by far the biggest writer on the article in terms of edits and the written text, I would love to collaborate with you on finishing it up. Feel free to respond on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted ;) All the best,--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have traditionally avoided efforts to get my articles reviewed for any official status. I don't object to people seeking such things, but I am rather particular about maintaining a common style across all of the major battle articles, so I do not support the whims of random, anonymous reviewers to demand arbitrary changes in those things simply to achieve good or featured status. (The Manual of Style allows a good deal of variation in things like citations and it protects the choices the original author of an article has made, but it is sometimes difficult to argue with people who demand that you adopt their preferences or they will not allow the article to be classified.) The style choices I have made for over 300 articles are described in User:Hlj/CWediting.
This particular article is actually not the best choice for advancement because it is only about two thirds complete. I had been going through all of the related battle articles, expanding them with maps, and then extracting condensed versions into this campaign article. Unfortunately, I got distracted with other tasks (I am currently hip deep in the Overland Campaign) and there are still seven battles that need expansion. I do not have a date certain by which this will be completed. If you plan to expand the descriptions of these seven battles yourself, please be aware that I will probably rewrite them in the future as I expand their associated articles.
I am unfamiliar with Welsh's work, although I just ordered a used copy for one dollar from Amazon. Since it claims to be a complete military history and the Siege of Petersburg occurs around page 100, I doubt that it can be very comprehensive. The article already has a lot of citations from the general works by Eicher, Kennedy, and Salmon, as well as the more focused works specifically about this campaign. Therefore, I don't see additional citations from Welsh as adding much value unless you are injecting new material. As you can see from my adjustments to your recent edits, the style I pursue uses primarily paragraph level citations, the style used by virtually all military history writers. The only time that I deviate from this is when there is some statement in the paragraph that seems dubious or controversial and a citation exactly in that place can help prevent future disputes. Common facts such as the start dates of battles do not fit into that controversial category. So if you are adding material to an existing paragraph and you are confident that that material is not already covered by the citations at the end of the paragraph, please add any of your citations to the end of the paragraph as well. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: My order through Amazon was canceled for some reason, so I looked again and see that the book is 192 pages; I have corrected my mistake in the preceding paragraph. Is this book worth buying? It is virtually invisible on the web (reviews, previews, etc.). Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I understand the concerns for submitting it to a GAN or FAC. Would it be OK to permit an attempt on a article such as the Petersburg one as long as no one requires drastic changes to it? If you really have an issue with what someone is requesting on a GAN or FAC, you can just let them know that and state why ;) As for Welsh's work, I would stop short of calling it a "complete military history" myself but it is a good book. It's not full of every detail of every battle but it is good for a general overview of the bigger picture, for instance the American Civil War article. I've been adding it into the Petersburg article not to just add in another citation, but because a few details (such as Meade's "rage" against his corps officers..and others) about it are mentioned in the book and were lacking in the text of the article. Feel free to buy it if you really want, but most of what's in it has likely been covered in most articles :) All the best,--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, this article is not a great choice for evaluation because it is not complete. Someone is bound to object – legitimately – that seven of the battles are described in little more than stubs, in contrast to the rich descriptions of all of the other battles. If you would like to try nominating it anyway, I suppose you can go ahead, but be aware that I will evaluate/adjust/revert any changes made to the article in the same manner as if it had not been nominated. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I did not word my comments right. I'm not intending to nominate the article right now. I was only offering to help get it to GA status by finishing it's work ;) Once the article work is finished, I will consider nominating it (trust me, I've learned that lesson the hard way far too many time).--White ShadowsStuck in square one 03:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to add to the article. Please respect the style and formatting decisions already in place. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Could you double check this revert? It did not seem like vandalism, and you didn't leave an edit summary or other explanation. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not vandalism ;) It is however a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as stated by a previous editor who reverted the IP. Sorry about the slow reaction (without any sort of explanation). I'm multitasking between WP:HG and DYK...--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world 00:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I missed the earlier editor's comments. -- Tom N (tcncv)talk/contrib 00:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition.
It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal.
Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.)
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the southern secession American Civil war.
I have noticed that you may have in the very least questioned the neutrality of the Article on the American Civil War. I wanted to take a moment and pass some thought of mine to you on the subject if you are interested in a discussion. As pointed out in the article slavery was a main cause of secession during the civil war. As pointed out in 2 parts of the article 4 states opted to leave due to other points than slavery. 4 states left due to Lincolns call for troops to suppress the southern uprising. I think this was clearly a main reason for secession for these 4 states as secession calls failed until this time. I think also this points specifically to the point that states seceded as individuals and their single minded views on secession are the most important. I feel critical research on each individual state is the most important to finding and being able to call an issue a major reason behind secession. For the four states I've mentioned that slavery was a minor reason for secession: Fort Sumter (or more specifically Lincolns call for troops), sectionalism, nationalism and honor, and States Rights (more specific the states right to secede) are likely the major issues to their secession. Since it seems that they are going for a majority reasoning of why these states seceded I find it may be important to find out each states pre-Civil war views on each subject.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rudyard Kipling (ship), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Rudyard Kipling's final resting place is at the bottom of the sea off the coast of Ireland? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
