User talk:Mitchumch/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Page creation errors

Hiya! I just wanted to give you a head's up - if you've created a page in error and want it deleted, you can always nominate it via WP:G7 as long as you were the only one to make any major edits. (Small trivial edits don't count.) If the page duplicates another entry and it was recently created, you can always use WP:A10. I figured that I'd let you know, since it's not something that automatically sticks out as far as article deletion stuff goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Radical Republicans

at American election campaigns in the 19th century editor Mitchumch is strongly opposed to the terminology "Radical Republicans." So I rephrased the statement and used a quotation from a 2014 reliable source: "The Radical Republicans in Congress were attempting to use the military to create a biracial society. The army ensured black men could vote, black males in the South were enfranchised and they overwhelmingly voted Republican." quoting Nikki L. M. Brown; Barry M. Stentiford (2014). Jim Crow: A Historical Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic. p. 349.. Eric Foner, the leading historian of Reconstruction, says, "Most insistent on identifying and protecting the basic rights of the freedpeople were the Radical Republicans, longtime foes of slavery and advocates of freedom as a principle limited to 'neither black nor white.'" Eric Foner (1999). The Story of American Freedom. pp. 104–5. Rjensen (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I am not opposed to the term "Radical Republicans." The term you used in this article was "Radical Reconstruction." Those two terms are not synonymous. I have only to refer to WorldCat and JStor to demonstrate the falseness of your claim regarding the use of the term "Radical Reconstruction."
Also, Radical Republicans were a wing of the Republican Party. The Moderate Republicans had a major role during this period. You don't seem to acknowledge their existence, size nor their influence within the party.
I own a copy of Eric Foner's work, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (1988). I have downloaded and watched his lectures at Columbia University:
Let me post another quote from Eric Foner from, Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era: A-L pp. xxiii-xxiv
"[F]or many decades, Reconstruction was tragically misunderstood by both historians and the broader public. Academic monographs, popular books, and films portrayed Reconstruction as the lowest point in the entire American saga. According to this view, the vindictive Radical wing of the Republican Party, motivated by hatred of the South, overturned the lenient plans for national reunion designed by Abraham Lincoln and his successor, Andrew Johnson, and imposed black suffrage on the defeated Confederacy."
"The prevailing account of Reconstruction during the first half of the twentieth century formed an ideological pillar of the system of white supremacy. It provided justification for the white South's unalterable opposition to change in race relations, and for decades of northern indifference to the nullification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
And Eric Foner is not the only scholar to write on the subject of Reconstruction. His 1988 publication is remarkable because it synthesized the existing literature on the topic up to that point in 1988, 27 years ago. Please try to incorporate research published since 1988. Otherwise, you run the risk of using discredited research to support discredited claims. Mitchumch (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I used current historiography. "Radical Reconstruction" is a current scholarly term--as shown by 1) book title = Uncivil War: Five New Orleans Street Battles and the Rise and Fall of Radical Reconstruction (LSU Press, 2006) by James Hogue; 2) "Conservatives, already gathering strength from new amnesties and individual pardons and from defections in the ranks of the loyal native Southerners, were making a last-ditch stand to defeat Radical Reconstruction." Reconstruction after the Civil War (2012 3rd ed. p 127) by John Hope Franklin. 3) "The federal government organized the Confederate states into five military districts during Radical Reconstruction." in America: A Concise History ( 2014 v2 p 443) by James A. Henretta, ‎et al. 4) "The real force reining in a Radical Reconstruction did not come from the generals at all, nor from Andrew Johnson. It came from a northern electorate growing more and more detached from the Reconstruction issue, more and more distracted ..." in A Dangerous Stir: Fear, Paranoia, and the Making of Reconstruction (2012 p 198) by

Mark Wahlgren Summers. Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Mayor of Columbus

A technicality, but though sworn-in at 6 pm on December 31, 2015, Ginther officially took office at midnight on January 1, 2016, per Section 705.78 of the Ohio Revised Code. I revised List of mayors of Columbus, Ohio. Happy New Year! General Ization Talk 18:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose technically Coleman's term should be said to end also on January 1 rather than December 31. This seems to have been the practice for all past successions to the office. General Ization Talk 18:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Since you seem to have the hang of the {{Css Image Crop}} syntax, could you incorporate File:Buck Rinehart, head shot.jpg into Bucky's entry in the list of mayors? Much appreciated if so. General Ization Talk 19:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@General Ization: I was hoping to find a less blurry image, but I can do that. Mitchumch (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Also wonder whether there might be some rationale for including this photo of Lashutka at Commons and using it here. General Ization Talk 19:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. - I do have a personal email address to contact him if we need to obtain his formal permission (since CML says he is the source). General Ization Talk 19:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@General Ization: Yeah, I'm aware of that image. I was hoping to use color images after Jack Sensenbrenner. I found a color photo that the owner permitted to be used, but I never got around to uploading it. I'll get both images up before the day ends. Mitchumch (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greensboro sit-ins, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Woolworth and Kress. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nashville sit-ins
added links pointing to John Lewis and Pearl High School
Freedom Riders
added a link pointing to First Baptist Church

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nashville Skyline

Hi, and I've followed some of your good work lately. On the Nashville Student Movement page, if you're going to make that the main page of the group and the actions that it organized then maybe it should be a full and detailed page, with the sit-in page merged to it. The Nashville group did the sit-ins, continued the Freedom Rides, played a very large role in the formation of SNCC, organized and ran the Open Theater Movement, and of course put their unique tactical knowledge to work throughout the Civil Rights Movement. Bevel, Nash, Lafayette, Lewis, and Vivian were the students who brought their Nashville knowledge into play elsewhere, and Bevel was well on his way to completing the entire movement when he and Dr. King joined as the first-tier team to do it quicker. You've probably read David Halberstam's The Children, which is about the Nashville Student Movement. A full and near-complete page on this group would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia and its coverage of the Civil Rights Movement. Go Buckeyes!? Randy Kryn 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

p.s. A red link user is going to town and adding/expanding much of the NSMovement data on the Diane Nash page. Randy Kryn 19:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Thanks. At the moment, I'm trying to develop infoboxes and campaignboxes to link events, individuals, and organizations together centered on the Civil Rights Movement. However, I agree with your assessment regarding the need for a fully developed article on NSM. It would be an invaluable addition to wikipedia.
I've also noticed the user working on the Diane Nash page. I'm surprised her page hasn't been developed more fully earlier given her status in the movement. Like Dorothy Cotton, she is an under covered participant of the movement. Mitchumch (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Columbus City Hall

Columbus City Hall (Columbus, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If so inclined, could you help me expand this new article, especially as to its history? I intend to add an image gallery using many photos already on-hand and some to be taken. General Ization Talk 14:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: I'm afraid I don't know much about City Hall. Nearly all of my focus was on the mayors and the mayoral elections. Besides the two citations on the article, what other sources are you using? Mitchumch (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the side

@Randy Kryn: I pinged you to come here because I want to have a one-on-one conversation with you. I hope this is okay with you.

I sincerely don't understand what you think will happen to the article if two letters are changed from upper case to lower case. You know I care about CRM. Do you think I would do anything to lessen the topic? Mitchumch (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. On the section before this, I notice you do a lot of Columbus, Ohio work, do you have a connection with the city? Go bucks? On the Montgomery page, yes, changing the case removes it from being a proper name, which I feel it has gained both in reality and in sources. Continuing to use the lesser n-gram in your nom, and saying that this n-gram shows that the lower-case is by far the preferred case, will continue to make editors coming to the nom to believe that the statement is correct when, in fact, the 2008 n-gram (very long ago in internet years) show the gap almost closed. The page seems to have been upper-cased since 2002, the childhood of Wikipedia, and that alone, everything else being equal (in 2008) should rate a Keep. I don't understand why we can't ping other editors who would have an interest, that's one Wikipedia rule that seems counter-productive. As for CRM editors, I wish we had a dozen more editors as good and as interested as you. Randy Kryn 23:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I don't have a problem with other editors participating in the discussion. There were alot of editors interested in CRM at one time, but have discontinued their participation. The only solution would be to create a formal group of CRM editors. I don't know if there would be enough editors for a WikiProject group. Perhaps a solicitation of interest would need to take place. No one, besides yourself, seem interested from my observation.
The reason I wanted to move the article title is because I will be creating alot of stubs for the CRM. Alot those new stubs will be boycotts, sit-ins, demonstrations, and other protests in other localities. The Montgomery article title was the only article (that I'm aware of) with upper case letters.
I am still committed to my plan that I outlined on User talk:Mitchumch/sandbox. Lately, I've been reviewing the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website in the History & Timeline section. See my work at Civil Rights Movement. I'm currently mid way into 1963. I have a ways to go. Afterwards, I will start to make stubs for all redlinks. I'm also trying to experiment with sideboxes, infoboxes, and navboxes to link all CRM related articles together.
I guess I don't see a negative impact on the Montgomery article. The article is a C-class article. I think the content of the article is in dire need of substantial improvement. If the article is improved, then article reviewers will require greater adherence to wikipedia policy. More likely than not, the article reviewers won't share CRM passion. Mitchumch (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The n-grams show capitalization very strong in 2008, with the trend being evident. My objection is that you continue to keep the nominating language as it is even though it is shown to be incorrect. An event is upper-cased when it's importance in culture is such that it has been recognized as a seminal event (see Cuban Missile Crisis), and thus has become a proper name. The Montgomery Bus Boycott isn't just a bus boycott, but the bus boycott. With the n-grams equaling out, and yet you using a misinterpretation of the n-grams as your major reason for changing the long-held and accepted title, seems a bit thumb-on-the-scale. Randy Kryn 10:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: You've posted your observation about the 2008 data and trend on the talk page. You're assuming no one is reading your response. Mitchumch (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
That's on the talk page, I thought you wanted to talk this out here too. It's not an observation, it's data. You put up a 2000 n-gram with the language 'by far' in your move request. The 2008 shows that your language and n-gram example is incorrect. Yet you haven't changed the language. That's the thing I don't understand. The request and making that initial case for the request is, of course, fair, but leaving that language as it is while knowing that it's inaccurate doesn't seem fair or leave much room to assume good faith. My apologies if this seems harsh, yet have not explained your reasoning for leaving that language in the nom, a nom which editors should be able to trust. Aside from all that did you see my ping at Neorange's talk page, he's looking for ideas for the Hosea Williams page. And jeez, someone should make an entire film about Fred Gray, what a living non-legend who should be a well-known household-word CRM icon. Columbus? David Garrow used to live in Columbus before he moved to Pittsburgh. Randy Kryn 11:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I used the default data. I forgot to change to 2008. I'll place an ADDENDUM beneath the original post to alert participants. Also, I never received a ping for Neorange's talk page. Alot of people deserve movies. Try Rev. Joseph DeLaine, the person responsible for Briggs v. Elliott from Clarendon County, South Carolina. An excerpt from page 3, "Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality" written by Richard Kluger describes the consequences for his actions as thus,
"Before it was over, they fired him from the little schoolhouse at which he had taught devotedly for ten years. And they fired his wife and two of his sisters and a niece. And they threatened him with bodily harm. And they sued him on trumped up charges and convicted him in a kangaroo court and left with a judgment that denied him credit from any bank. And they burned his house to the ground while the fire department stood around watching the flames consume the night. And they stoned the church at which he pastored. And fired shotguns at him out of the dark. But he was not Job, and so he fired back and called the police, who did not come and kept not coming. Then he fled, driving north at eighty-five miles an hour over country roads, until he was across the state line. Soon after, they burned his church to the ground and charged him, for having shot back that night, with felonious assault with a deadly weapon, and so he became an official fugitive from justice."
I want him and all the others to be as well known as Montgomery. It wasn't solely about Montgomery, Selma, Birmingham, Greensboro, Chicago, or Nashville. It was all of the ordinary people that did extraordinary things.
As for Columbus, I try to remain anonymous. Sorry. Mitchumch (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
So many heroes and heroines! All should have their place in the history of the era. So many are still alive and yet aren't being focused on except on anniversaries, etc. - it's as if the era that America's founding fathers came and went with people saying 'whoops, should have done more for her'. So fun to talk to these people. Anyway, Neorange's talk page has a section near the bottom, I guess I pinged wrong. Thanks. 12:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I looked up Neonorange's talk page. I know who Hosea is, but my knowledge base is weak. I'm surprised to see only three references for the entire article and no "Further reading" section. I'm surprised someone hasn't tagged that article with a notice. Perhaps I can help in that department. As for the beer and pizza, sounds appetizing. But I'm going to have turn it down. I've deliberately maintained an anonymous presence. Same for email. Again, I'm sorry. But, I appreciate the offer. Please don't take it personal. Mitchumch (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool. And I guess that's why he wants to get more references. I never met Williams, although had a phone interview once. Their are still quite a few of the main CRM people alive, wandering the countryside, righting wrongs, teaching others. Check out David Jehnsen, a major figure in the Chicago movement, and Kale Williams from that movement. The 50th anniversary of the Open Housing Movement is coming up this late Spring and Summer. Randy Kryn 13:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I've never heard of those individuals. Not surprising though. There's an entire pantheon of individuals I have yet to learn about. I wish I had started this project I'm working on years earlier to coincide with the anniversaries.

Are you okay with my addendum? I apologize for the error. Wasn't my intention to misrepresent your position. Mitchumch (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Euvester Simpson has been accepted

Euvester Simpson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Anne Delong (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dallas County Voters League (April 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zppix was:
Read Manual of Style and cleanup, copyedit, and rewrite the article according to the Manual of Style.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Mitchumch, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Dallas County League

Seems like a Wiki-worthy article to me. Nice work and an important topic. With bias but still being neutral (using facts alone) I think James Bevel should be also called the initiator and strategist of the Selma to Montgomery march as well as helping to organize it. A couple minor things I see on the page, mind if I drop in for those? Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: It was a draft article that was abandoned. I've been trying to rescue draft articles before they are deleted. You would be surprised at the articles that get deleted. Anyhow, please add anything you think worthy. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Good rescue. I wouldn't be surprised at much of what occurs in the boiler rooms here (and they seem to be in the hundreds), but if the rescues are as good as this that's a very nice project, thank you for doing it. I'll nudge it a bit, and add that Bevel stuff, maybe not today (tweaks maybe). Thanks. Randy Kryn 21:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dallas County Voters League (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 333-blue was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
333-blue 06:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement template

Hi. I looked at your sandbox 'Civil Rights Movement' giant template, and I'd be personally opposed to such a major change. It's probably in a very rough state now, but the present template seems fine. Randy Kryn 18:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Don't worry, it's not a template to be used as a replacement. I use it as a tool to identify missing articles. I was hoping you could identify articles that need to be created and add to it. Mitchumch (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Cool. You've got a lot of good ideas on there, and are doing great work. I must admit to you that I do carry a little grrrrr over the Montgomery Bus Boycott name change, which I will continue to have overturned and mention as a major mistake on the part of the closer. Aside from that, though, nice stuff. I came across an article of a fellow I'd never heard of until yesterday, Glenn Smiley, who was active in the Montgomery bus boycott and added him to the template. Did you know abut him (maybe it's one of your pages!)? There's also Richard Boone who was active in the movement who doesn't have a page, interested in doing one? More soon. Randy Kryn 19:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Neither Boone nor Smiley's name ring a bell, but so many people that participated in the movement are now obscure. Creating articles at the state and local level should remedy this "obscurity" issue. I'll place their names in the Montgomery and Selma sandbox articles. There is a very large pantheon of participants that are obscure. Part of the aim of this project is to rescue these individuals from obscurity.
As for the Mbb article, if I had known it would cause this much consternation, then I would've left it alone. Mitchumch (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Nice, you have a wide focus and know what you're creating. I just heard of Smiley yesterday, nice to find someone new who seemed, if the page is to be believed, some effect on the start of the movement, maybe a little too much credit though because Myles Horton already had covered a great deal of the nonviolent education and King had already studied Gandhi. The RM was fine, your right and choice. I just think a complete do-over is the fairest way to go, because of the n-gram thing. And a better closer, one who studied it from every angle, like the Hillary Clinton close last year (a three person panel took about a month to focus on the points of view and data both presented and pointed to). I should get back to it soon, I'm slow about some stuff and focus on other things. Randy Kryn 23:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Memphis sanitation strike

M, when I downcased this, I noted "no suggestion here that Sanitation is part of any proper name". That's still true. Yet you moved it to a different and fully capitalized title, treating it as a proper name. The n-gram link that you gave clearly shows that it is not consistently capitalized in sources; see MOS:CAPS. So I moved it back, per WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Consistency as a word is a stupid way of judging, it means that every Tom, Dicklyon, and Randy can write a magazine article, decapitalize or capitalize something, and it will "count" as a consistency-breaker. What is occurring recently on Wikipedia is a general deemphasizing of social movements, especially the Civil Rights Movement, by lower-casing their overall names and the names of the main events. By going after the events in Dr. King's life, including its end, we are providing a slight fading-away of the memories of those times. Again, you likely knew that decapitalizing the Memphis strike is controversial, so please do an RM if you feel the need (and that should work, as their are now some not-too-bright closers working the circuit), but let's leave it in upper-case until then. I left a note at the page of the admin Anthony Appleyard, who moved it, asking for a reversal. Dicklyon has hurried up and locked up the page so it can't be moved back. Randy Kryn 11:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Question

As noted, please reply to me either at my talk page or at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Response

@Robert McClenon: Please use my talk page to bring to my attention any issue you have with my behavior. Or, feel free to email me. If you read anything that you think makes me a "complainer and arguer" or "take-no-prisoners ideologue", then quote the statement so I know exactly what you're referring to. Believe it or not, I have no idea what you read that made you think this way. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Template

The African-American Civil Rights Movement template is under heavy pressure at the deletion site and now deletions are running over to the template and other pages. Can we ping others to join in? Your idea of a Wikipedia project for the CRM hasn't formally taken shape, so pings to others may serve that purpose. Randy Kryn 13:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I seriously doubt the template will be deleted. Pinging others will invite violations. I wouldn't remove any content that can be supported by reliable sources. Based on my research, the current template would grow exponentially. Do you have any ideas for restructuring the template? I looked at Wikipedia:NAVBOX for suggestions for acceptable navboxes in the Examples section. The following horizontal navboxes were listed as acceptable:
Folding seems to allow keeping all content. Mitchumch (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Not as much in danger of being deleted but trimmed and broken up. The discussion has gone in that direction, please have a look. I'd make the folds, leaving the events as an open section, if I could figure out the code enough to do it. Can you give it a go? And after reading WP:CANVASSING it seems that a few other editors can be pinged. Randy Kryn 14:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: I can introduce the folds into the template. Don't trim anything. Trimming implies redundancy is present within the template. Only reliable sources determine what is redundant or pertinent to the CRM, not ones imagination. Mitchumch (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Here is a first step towards the CRM template with folds. It's in one of my sandbox pages. What changes did you want to make to it, if any? Mitchumch (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks very good, applause. Coding whiz. With the Related collapsed maybe those two pesky red-link songs can be added back. I haven't looked at the delete discussion in a few hours, maybe later, but hopefully everyone will like this. Maybe you can just go ahead and mainpage it. Nice work. Randy Kryn 00:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:American Experience episodes

Template:American Experience episodes has been nominated for merging with Template:American Experience. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Experience (season 20), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Freeman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shtetl (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frontline. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorting at "Featured content"

Hi! I noticed your edit at Portal:Television/Featured content. Since that page is maintained by a bot, I'm afraid your adjustments to the sorting will probably be overwritten in a few hours. The previous sorting is OK, I think - it is alphabetical, ignoring an initial "The" and "A", and using surnames rather than forenames. I suspect that the bot has been coded to use each page's DEFAULTSORT. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thanks for the heads up. I noticed the articles "The" and "A" were ignored. However, there appeared to be other entries that seem to have a peculiar arrangement. Look at the prior edit before mine - Revision as of 10:20, 17 September 2016. A sample entry is "List of Black Lagoon episodes". "List of ..." is ignored, but other entries with "List of ..." aren't ignored. Should it be ignored or not ignored. At the very least, a note to explain the ordering to the entries should be posted to alert editors/readers. Thanks again. Mitchumch (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is messy. I've posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#DEFAULTSORT in "List of 'Foo' featured lists to see what other editors think. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Intro to School integration in the United States article

Hi! I just wanted to have some dialogue about the intro paragraph to the School integration in the United States article! I removed the couple of sentences about pre-Brown integration early today because it seemed unbalanced to cover that without an comparable sentence about places that were NOT integrated before Brown. I can point to a number of sources that speak of the widespread nature of non-integrated schools before Brown. More than that, I also thought it might be better for that to go in the Background section rather than the intro, because again, it appears to contribute more to the early history of school integration rather than an overview of school integration. Please pardon my hastiness in deleting without providing a detailed explanation of why--I'm new to Wikipedia and it didn't look like anyone had been active on this article for a while, and no one responded to my posts on the talk page, so I'm not sure how in-depth to go in my summaries of all of my edits. Please let me know your thoughts--I'd greatly appreciate any and all feedback! Cpm5 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cpm5: Sorry about that, I didn't know you were performing edits as a student from a university or that you were new to the site.
I understand your argument regarding balance of content. Please keep in mind that most Wikipedia articles are overwhelming incomplete. If you look at the top left corner of the article you will see "A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Please click on "start-class" and acquaint yourself with the different "class of articles" that exist on Wikipedia by skimming Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment (scroll down until you see the different classes). Consequently, any argument that relies upon imbalance to delete content will most likely not be accepted. The only solution is to add balance. In this particular case, moving the content into the body of the article would have been an acceptable editing choice.
In regards to your summary statement, the phrase "biased section" did not seem to accurately describe the section you deleted. At best, "imbalanced section" would have more accurately captured your rationale for deleting the content. Always keep in mind that you may need to defend your edits. Your edit summaries will be part of that discussion, if it occurs. My best recommendation is practice makes perfect.
I looked over your talk page entries and skimmed through your proposal on the google doc link.I don't know what your experiences are as a student when you were taught about editing on Wikipedia. From my personal examination, this article was created on 17:11, 30 May 2014, it has less than 30 page watchers, and is viewed nearly 100 times per day. I would have created a "Further reading" section on the article page and added your bibliography. Secondly, I would have moved the content you deleted. Other than that, I wish you the best of luck as you edit Wikipedia. Mitchumch (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Pings

Thanks, but you can't edit them. If you get them wrong, you need to start a complete new post. Doug Weller talk 18:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stan Salett has been accepted

Stan Salett, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Smmurphy(Talk) 17:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mitchumch. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello Mitchumch/Archive 2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  BD2412 T 13:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted move

I reverted your move at Mississippi civil rights workers' murders. If you'll check the talk page, you'll see that a similar proposal failed a while back. And as for the Oxford comma being "excess", I disagree. It usually helps the readability. Dicklyon (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: If you're referring to the April 2016 discussion, then there were three participants - me, you, and an anonymous editor that performed two weeks worth of contributions on Wikipedia from 22 April 2016 to 1 May 2016. That's not a failed proposal. That's two people that disagree and an IP that could've been a sock-puppet for all I know.
Anyhow, the title is ambiguous. There were numerous civil rights workers (and non-civil rights workers) killed in Mississippi and the existing article title does not comply with the accepted conventions of "Murder of ..." articles on Wikipedia. Political violence in the form of shootings, arson attacks, murder, and bombings in Mississippi were so pervasive as to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. A better solution is needed to prevent ambiguation. Mitchumch (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. Still, it was a failed proposal. And the IP looks like a real editor, probably just with a dynamic IP. Feel free to open a new RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: It was not a failed proposal. You may be right about the IP, but then again you may be wrong. We don't know. When I did initiate a discussion, no one showed up except you and the discussion was open for two weeks. I also chose to perform an edit move to generate some attention and to see how stable the edit is. I understand you disagree with the move, but your sole position does not make the move controversial nor a failed proposal. I would like to hear from other interested editors and give them an opportunity to weigh in. The article title can always be restored to its current title. Mitchumch (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I did restore it already. Probably the best way to solicit more opinions is to repeat the RM. Your first RM "failed" in the sense that it attracted no support. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bruce W. Klunder

Hi Mitchumch. I wanted to let you know that I reversed your move of Bruce W. Klunder. Klunder wasn't murdered, so Murder of Bruce W. Klunder isn't an appropriate article name. Let's hold a page move discussion on the article's talk page to come up with a better name. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: That was my mistake. I had a list of article moves and accidentally had him on that list. Sorry about that. Mitchumch (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It's no problem. Like many movement activists, Klunder's death is better documented than his activism was, so the encyclopedia article of necessity says much more about the dramatic way in which he died. It probably should be moved, but it wasn't a murder.
By the way, I've been meaning for years to thank you for all the work you do expanding and adding sources to articles about the civil rights movement. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz: I appreciate the compliment. Though, I feel like I've only taken a few steps on a 1,000 mile journey. Mitchumch (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Irene Morgan into Morgan v. Virginia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I don't understand why I received this message. I placed an attribution note on the Talk:Irene Morgan here and on the Talk:Morgan v. Virginia here. Am I missing something? Mitchumch (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I see what you are saying. I didn't note the copying within the edit summary. Gotcha. Sorry about that. Mitchumch (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
That's right; the edit summary is required, while talk page posts/templates are optional. A lotta people don't know this rule :). Best, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mitchumch/Archive_2&oldid=1138976205"