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)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ulysses S. Grant, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

DYK for South Carolina v. North Carolina[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John Weaver (mayor)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding[edit]

Would you have time for the peer review? We are fresh out of Gilded Age presidents!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to take a look. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Philadelphia municipal election, 1951[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts?[edit]

Timeline of Philadelphia has a discussion about selection and inclusion criteria. Two editors are discussing it, but we have divergent views. More opinions would be helpful. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Trent Kelly (politician)[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents rewrite[edit]

Hello Coemgenus,

I wanted to know about one of your sandboxes: User:Coemgenus/Sandbox3. It's an interesting idea. I'd love to help, or even finish it myself if you are not up for it. Thoughts? Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: Sure, I'd be glad for the help. I was going for something like List of Prime Ministers of Canada or List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, which are both featured lists. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll probably start filling in information on the various Presidents tomorrow. Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015
Symbol support vote.svg

Welcome to the GA Cup! The competition is about to begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:

  • This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
  • If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
  • The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
  • Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.

Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.

Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.

The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.

It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.

Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!

If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.

After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.

Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2015[edit]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dank: that looks great. I tweaked one sentence to emphasise that the unit was almost all New Yorkers. I'm excited to see it run -- the 68th was my great-great-grandfather's regiment. (I don't think there's a conflict of interest problem there, none of the sources mention him, nor does the article). --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
yes, looks great, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Philadelphia municipal election, 1955[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Philadelphia municipal election, 1955 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

and on, and on[edit]

In citation, cite 1. Smith, see also, Sarna ("Sarna quote") or 2nd choice the other way around? After all, a scholar would appear to be RS expositor of their own work? And done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sarna is a reliable source on Sarna. I guess that's a reasonable exception to make to using what would otherwise be a weak source. The "2013" part had me confused, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you are right to be skittish, so, if we use Sarna, we really should back up with Smith book in a 'see also' fashion. i could live with that. (I have no clue about 2013) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Victor H. Blanc[edit]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on 1880 Greenback National Convention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill FAC[edit]


I've just renominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC. You commented last time. Mind taking a look again. It's been through a copyedit and an A-Class review over at the Military History WikiProject. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 07:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Please read the article cited about Jeb Bush - thanks

Coinage Act of 1873[edit]

At FAC; your comments greatly appreciated. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'll check it out this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Quebec referendum, 1995[edit]

Thanks for all your help on the article, and your recommendation. Knoper (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I enjoyed reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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)


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)