User talk:Esoderholm

Warren Morehouse

@Esoderholm Thanks for your hard work on the Stephen Warren Morehouse page and happy to continue to work on it with you. I think it is overall very good but I did trim out some stuff I thought was too far afield. Let's continue the conversation on the page itself and the talk page. I find that easier than e-mailing. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

I have entered a shorter version of Mr. Morehouse's civil war service. Again, you removed a critical piece: the noting of his gallantry by his commanding officer in one of the bloodiest and most heroic actions of the war. If you feel this version is still too long, please let me know through this message chain or via email instead of "clearing the deck" again. It easier to make minor revisions then re-start at square one. If you have minor tweaks or note grammatical mistakes, by all means, go ahead and correct them.

Best regards,

Eliot Soderholm Esoderholm (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still needs to be trimmed by about 50 percent. Again this is an article about Stephen Warren Morehouse. It isn't an article about the 54th more broadly. Going to go through again line by line. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through added some more links and trimmed further. Again if you think there is something that is substantively related to Morehouse directly, feel free to re-add but more general material on the 54th Regiment are better for that page. A question I often ask when editing Wikipedia is "does it belong on Wikipedia and further, does it belong on this specific page." Jjazz76 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reduction of the piece looks ok, but you changed the tone of the story. I'm not sure if you have studied the regimental history of the Mass. 54th, but reports from eye witnesses at the battle of Olustee included statements such as "the Black regiment had stood in the gap and saved the army." Yes, this may not have to do directly with Mr. Morehouse per say, but it is a critical contextual component in revealing his valor and character. I have tweaked a few phrases and re-added one sentence. If my edits look good to you, then we can consider the matter settled. I appreciate your efforts to uphold what you believe to be a pure and correct Wikipedia format, but know that a large part of the efforts on our end is to provide publicly accessible information on a forgotten war hero. This is why the context of his valor is important to us (the originators of the article). I am willing to compromise on dropping the train story, if you are willing to keep in the context of the heroism of Mr. Morehouse during the battle (in other words... the edits I have just made). Esoderholm (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening,

I noted your minor grammatical changes to my latest edits. I made a few grammar fixes too. As far as I can tell, you appear to be satisfied with the piece in it's current state. It looks good to me to, and I am assuming no further changes to the structure or content of the Civil War section will be procured by you or me (grammar corrections aside). In other words, that we have found common ground and declare a truce. Thank you for working through this cooperatively.

Best regards,

Eliot Soderholm Esoderholm (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks good for now. I think we've whittled down the Civil War stuff to really focus on his contribution, which is very cool that it is documented in a bunch of sources.

I also added a page cite for the citation as a sharpshooter. Also seeing he appears elsewhere in the book. Do you think we might be able to add it:

https://archive.org/details/historyoffiftyfo00emil_1/page/300/mode/2up?q=morehouse&view=theater

You have a better sense than I as to where it would fit into the narrative.

Overall, sounds like an interesting historical figure. Perhaps there are other small bits to find about him in various reliable sources. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

I agree that the page, in it's current state, looks very good: complete but focused on Mr. Morehouse's story and contributions to and involvement in the war. Thank you for helping us improve it by giving it a more "professional" appearance (in the context of Wikipedia norms).

The quote you pointed out is already included, but I'm glad you mentioned it because it alerted me to a goof I had made last night: I got distracted mid-way through working on the page, and forgot to go back in and correct the sequence of events. I just re-worked the third paragraph to follow chronological order, no material was added or removed. The quote is mentioned as a noting of Mr. Morehouse's service as a scout during action near Boykin, and is linked to Emilio's regimental history.

As of now, everything we know from several year's research is included on the page. Professor Stager is the one who did the work to uncover Mr. Morehouse's story, as one of his students, I assisted in writing the page (and now have been assigned to take charge of working with you on edits). Prof.'s work is ongoing, and he may have discovered some new material recently. If and when we find anything it will be added. For now, I consider the page to be complete and "static" or perhaps "dormant" in terms of changes or work; the content is appropriate and correct,and grammatical goofs rare if at all existent.

Best regards,

Eliot Soderholm Esoderholm (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Maybe you and I can help Prof. Stager out when we have the time. There's always history to be uncovered. Jjazz76 (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we got it covered ... but thank you for your offer. That was not what I was steering towards ~ my point is we have a pretty complete history of Mr. Morehouse.

I assume, most likely, good bye,

Eliot Soderholm Esoderholm (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised. I'd venture that we've barely scratched the surface about Mr. Morehouse, that his complete history is yet to be written. I plan to continue to work on finding additional sources about Mr. Morehouse's life. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my message. You have had us running in circles after axing our work, and now you want to plant a new tree? Seriously? My apologies for saying so, but that is a jerk move. I don't think you realize the academic might and depth of research that has been done and is ongoing. I'm not sure who you are or think you are, or why you think you have some sort of a stake or connection to this work. What I do know is that years of digging through archives has produced the material here-in published, and I can assure you we will take care of any further digging that must be done. I shouldn't of broached the topic - that much is on me. I was trying to remain polite, but my patience and time are running out. In other words: please leave the Morehouse topic and page alone. We have entertained and respected your puristic Wikipedia renegade notions. Please respect our work.

Eliot Soderholm Esoderholm (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and leave this topic to us.

Esoderholm (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sorry - I think you are missing the point of Wikipedia. The point is to collaborate on articles and to find reliable sources to support the claims. I actually think we've made some good improvements and some additional cites. I hope you think so as well!

The Morehouse article isn't for you or anyone else to camp out on. It is an ongoing work that can and will continue to be edited on. The claim that I should "please leave the Morehouse topic and page alone" is going to be ignored by me as well as anyone else who wants to edit that page with RS and good information. I " have some sort of a stake or connection to this work" because I edit lots of New York topics, including towns, cities and colleges. I actually learned about the article from the Paul Smith page where I've done a whole bunch of editing. Thank you for your important work on this topic, and you've done some really excellent work on it, but the work is going to continue to grow and evolve. That's just the nature of Wikipedia.

Happy editing! Jjazz76 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning,

I think we left off on the wrong foot. We are both walking the Wikipedia trail and therefore must collaborate. If I may be frank, your initial clean-sweeps of the page were sloppily done and removed key information, and experience editing Wikipedia articles does not qualify you as an activist or historical researcher.

For the sake of fairness, here are my flaws and qualifications: I should not have delved into the scope of research thus far done, and my patience wore thin and my last transmission was unprofessional in that it contained more emotion then logic. Thus, I am re-writing this segment of our collaborative narrative. I will admit my qualifications are slim, but present: I work under a professor who has spent decades working as an activist and is highly published in scientific literature, I myself have organized multiple grass-roots projects, a minority-history movement or two, and have been published in smaller circles.

Feel free to keep digging on Warren Morehouse. Believe what you will, but I can assure you that if will be extremely difficult to locate more details on the story of Mr. Morehouse. That being said, if you uncover anything please notify me.

I will be adding another paragraph to the civil war section on Sunday. It will include a brief description of the role Mr. Morehouse fulfilled, and I argue that it merits inclusion on his Wikipedia page as without it people reading the page would not know what that position entails or the significance of it. Thus, please do not reduce the addition I make. If you are in disagreement over it, please alert me as to what issue you see having arisen, and we can take steps to correct it.

This holds true for anything else ~ I would politely request to be in the loop on any non-grammatical changes to the page.

Best regards,

Eliot Soderholm Esoderholm (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, and your hard work on this, for which you should be complimented. I like to think that bringing to light "forgotten" historical figures/events leads us to find a wealth of information we never new/dreamed could be out there. I've seen it happen on Wikipedia and in the historical research I do in my daily life. I'm not trying to discourage you - quite the opposite. Keep editing, adding, refining the articles you've been looking at. They'll be better, and this site will be better from your continued hard work. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]