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) | 2015 (2)


WikiCup 2015 September newsletter[edit]

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia municipal election, 1951[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philadelphia municipal election, 1951 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Legislative question[edit]

I was doing online research on H.R. 807 that authorized the three-cent nickel in 1865. The Act of March 3, 1865. Except the Congressional Globe shows it wasn't passed by the Senate until the 4th (legislative day of March 3 continued till March 4 at noon). So does the fact that it's called the Act of March 3, 1865 mean that Lincoln signed it before Congress adjourned at noon? Even though Congress adjourns, he's still got the ten days to sign or pocket veto. If you have knowledgeable TPS, they should feel free to join in.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That is strange. Was the title a part of the bill? Maybe it just took longer to pass than expected and they never changed the name? Or maybe it was one of those situations where the legislative day was extended and they pretended it was still March 3, for some reason? Congressional procedure still confuses me. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, they extended it til March 4 at noon. Strange stuff. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia municipal election, 1951[edit]

The article Philadelphia municipal election, 1951 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Philadelphia municipal election, 1951 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philadelphia municipal election, 1951[edit]

The article Philadelphia municipal election, 1951 you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Philadelphia municipal election, 1951 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!![edit]

Cheers! (3162940696).jpg Super Mediation Particpant Award
Thank you for your dedication, patience and flexibility at mediation. Cheers! KeithbobTalk 19:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

West Virginia barnstar.svg The West Virginia Barnstar
Coemgenus, I hereby award you The West Virginia Barnstar in recognition of your thorough and comprehensive source review of Romney Literary Society, which was recently promoted to Featured Article status. Your time and effort are greatly appreciated, and I thank you for helping to illustrate an important chapter of West Virginia's history here on Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln[edit]

Hello Coemgenus, I apologize if I am unknowingly violating any long-standing customs since I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia. I am interested in why you took exception to my additional details on Abraham Lincoln and deleted my edits. Not angry or offended, mind you ... just interested.

Note that as an Australian I have no vested interest in how Lincoln is portrayed, save that any portrayal should be based on facts, not opinion. How would you have phrased my comments to make them acceptable?

Thanks

/Graham Greyshaft (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

After the Battle of Fort Sumter, Lincoln realized the importance of taking immediate executive control of the war and making an overall strategy to put down the rebellion. Lincoln encountered an unprecedented political and military crisis, and he responded as commander-in-chief, using unprecedented powers. He expanded his war powers, and imposed a blockade on all the Confederate shipping ports, however the imposition of a "blockade" created two legal points of contention. Firstly, a "blockade" is imposed on a foreign port by an enemy power, therefore the act of imposing a blockade implied that Lincoln was recognizing the Confederacy as a separate country. A more appropriate term from a Union perspective would be to impose a "closure" of the port.

− The second point is that Lincoln imposed a blockade on North Carolina on April 27th 1861, almost a month before that state's secession on May 29th, 1861. The act of proclaiming a blockade was later recognized by the US Supreme court in Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, as official and conclusive evidence that a state of war existed, leaving the President in the constitutionally awkward position of having levied war against a (at that time) loyal Union State. Such an action is defined as Treason in Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution, however the matter was never prosecuted by North Carolina, presumably because the State no longer saw herself as bound by the US Constitution, nor entitled to benefit by its protections. + The second point is that Lincoln imposed a blockade on North Carolina on April 27th 1861, almost a month before that state's secession on May 29th, 1861. The act of proclaiming a blockade was later recognized by the US Supreme court in Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, as official and conclusive evidence that a state of war existed, leaving the President in the constitutionally awkward position of having levied war against a (at that time) loyal Union State. Such an action is defined as Treason in Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution, however the matter was never prosecuted by North Carolina, presumably because the State no longer saw herself as bound by the US Constitution, nor entitled to benefit by its protections.

@Greyshaft: I apologize for misunderstanding the point of your edits. That article attracts a lot of editors with an agenda, so I may have been a little quick to judge you there. Sorry. I would probably still recommend against those edits because they gave a great deal of detail in an already long article. For the main Abraham Lincoln article, our summary style requirement leads us to keep the prose pretty tight. For more detailed sub-articles, like Presidency of Abraham Lincoln or Union blockade, more detail is allowed. There are a lot of rules and guidelines here -- after ten years, I still don't know what to do sometimes -- but if you act in good faith and ask questions, you should be fine. I hope you'll continue to edit here, and I apologize again for my curt edit summary and reversion of your edits. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


@Coemgenus: No problem. I have moved my contribution to the Union blockade page. It probably makes more sense there anyway. Greyshaft (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Francis Egan[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael Francis Egan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Francis Egan[edit]

The article Michael Francis Egan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Michael Francis Egan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Francis Egan has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Your GA nomination of Michael Francis Egan[edit]

The article Michael Francis Egan you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Michael Francis Egan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Congratulations on making it all the way to Round 3 of the 2nd Annual GA Cup. Although you didn't make the Final/top 5 (which was very hard), the judges would like to commend you with this barnstar. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Francis Egan[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results[edit]

Flag of the Smithsonian Institution.svg
Flag of Wales.svg
Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991-1995).svg

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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 · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award[edit]

Awarded for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

William Daniel (Maryland politician)[edit]

Saw that William Daniel (Maryland politician) is on your to-do in the future list.... I was able to find a 2 pics of him as well as his full birth/death dates last week. I might be able to find some basic biographical info as well if I get some time later this week, as well, to get you started on the GA push. Connormah (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's great! I appreciate your help. He's frustratingly hard to find information on. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Template Cite Census needs attention[edit]

A template you created and were / are maintaining has several outstanding issues pending on the talk page. Do you have time to resolve these? Thanks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson review[edit]

Thanks for chiming in on the Thomas Jefferson Talk page. I tried to stay off the mainspace, and got a couple additions/reinstatements, and failed a couple of times. Mostly I enjoyed the article improving before my eyes, even more than I resented losing detail. I was especially pleased with a sense of validation to see my section on "democracy" survive. I suppose contributors will continue to wrestle with the proposal for Jefferson and religion a bit more. What is a decent time to wait and see for some "stability" and renomination? Do you have any recommendations for "ground rules" considering the regular contributors to the page? I felt like editors and reviewer were on different wavelengths sometimes...talking past one another. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I think you're right that the main editors were at cross-purposes. The problem, I think, is that not everyone has the same goal for the article. Hoppyh obviously wants it to be a GA, which means following the GA criteria. Until that goal (and adherence to those rules) is universal among the editors, we'll never achieve a product that is both stable and in compliance with GA (or FA) standards. So, I guess the first step would be asking all involved editors to agree on a goal, then working out whatever differences remain. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...[edit]

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article request for Chester A. Arthur[edit]

I added a today's featured article request for Chester A. Arthur for February 15 since it is Presidents Day. http://en.wjbk.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests

OK, thanks for letting me know. If it gets selected, I'll give it a looking-over to make sure nothing incorrect has been added since it was promoted. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
You can go to the request page and show your support. (Halgin (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)).

Randall article - S. Walter Poulshock[edit]

Hello, I think I might have spotted a problem with the article on Samuel J. Randall. One of the sources cited is S. Walter Poulshock of UPenn/Rutgers. I've recently been reading about his career and how it emerged that he committed extensive academic fraud, which led me to add an article on him. (His book was apparently detected as fraud in 1966, but I think with the internet not around and a general reticence about the topic the word did't spread well.) Should this be changed somehow? I thought I should ask you since I know little about history and it's your project. (Tariffs in United States history has the same problem and there it's probably even more important since that was what his career specialised in, but it's not a featured article.) Blythwood (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: thank you for bringing that to my attention! I seem to have only cited to Poulshock's article twice, and for pretty basic points, not direct quotations from 19th-century figures, so I don't think the Randall article has any issue with incorrect information. That said, I'll try to find an alternate way to source it. In the meantime, I've added a link to your article. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Just to add, I really recommend removing that ref as soon as possible - my impression reading the available sources on his short career as a historian is nothing he wrote can really be trusted since it was all one fairly closely connected body of work - PhD thesis, journal articles, book on the same topic. Blythwood (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On![edit]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On![edit]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)