User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious
Six years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Back to work?

TVH, I'm hoping that disgruntled kangaroo court, trying to manipulate the ANI, hasn't discouraged you from continuing to contribute to the discussions and editing. Your academic credentials and years of experience are welcomed and badly needed, just as they were when we cleaned up the American Revolutionary War article. Best, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. And, I'm pleased to see the open footnotes for the ARW are restored. That gives me heart. 21:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Gwillhickers. For once. (Humor) YoPienso (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

ACW accounting

  • Talk section “Did the Southern states secede?” 9pm 26 Aug. ended 7:20am 27 Aug without reply to three points left standing for 6-days before new Intro paragraphs post.
- (1) No need to litigate “state secession” constitutionality, name the historical actors who were Secessionists.
- (2) Of states represented in the C.S. Congress, 77% (VA, TN, TX excepted) used no state-constitutional authorization of men voting to ratify ‘secession’, so their States did not secede, only the named Secessionist actors.
- (3) The mass meeting of Secessionists held at Charleston was declared SC-constitutionally unlawful because the state legislature did not meet at the Capital in Columbia SC.
  • Talk section “Secession in the WP editorial voice” 9:01am 27 Aug. ended 8:14am 28 Aug with a consensus by Alanscottwalker, Hog Farm, MattMauler and myself that Secessionists in the Southern states used “Ordinances of Secession” to precipitate war, and “declared secession accurately conveys the unilateral belligerency.
- Points made and unanswered for 7-days before new Intro paragraphs post were
- (1) war did not begin with Ordinances.
- (2) War did not begin at unauthorized militias in each state seizing forts, armories, naval shipyards, or Treasury Mints.
- (3) War began only at occupation of Ft. Sumter prohibiting lawful collection of tariffs, located on territory ceded by SC state by statute and accepted by the US by an Act of Congress. Lincoln called up 75,000 to match J.Davis 100,000 two months earlier.
- (4) And finally, using “declared secession” here would align with the Confederate States of America terminology. There is still no reply as of Revert Warning to TVH.
  • Talk section “Opening in the Intro” 7:46pm 4 Sep to discuss avoiding “litigating the Constitutionality of “secession in the United States” in the Article and here at Talk.” With the proposed text using the language “formed by Secessionists and their armies”. Maurice Magnus objected in a revert, [in effect disputing the role of out-of-state armies for KY and MO, and at the Richmond referendum ballot count] and so TVH defers until further discussion.
  • Dayirmiter (talk · contribs) here and Maurice Magnus (talk · contribs) here attempt a trim on the Intro paragraph summarizing the course of the war, foreshadowing much of the TVH revision, such as minimizing Emancipation Proclamation exposition (TVH maintained a link-mention for wartime manpower impact-so more aligned with CaptainEek-), dropping enumeration of several Generals by name in the Into course-of-war summary, etc. with the effect of writing a more concise Intro summary paragraph.
  • CaptainEek revert of the entirety here, without any discussion at Talk.
  • TVH uses “declared secession” 28 Aug Talk consensus here 17:59 Sep 5 “Per Talk, term “declared secession to align with WP Confederate States of America article. …unobjected to for 9-days. Prior to any revert, discuss at Talk to find consensus there, without an Edit War here.”
  • TVH posts 6 new Intro paragraphs, with most text taken from existing Article here opened 6-Talk sections for paragraph-by-paragraph discussion at Talk.
  • REVERT CaptainEek reverted entire TVH contribution for new Intro text here 19:32 Sep 5 “You entirely rewrote the lead, upsetting consensus wording and topics in numerous areas.” No discussion at Talk prior to disruption.
  • TVH amended a sentence [ | here] for 28 August consensus Secessionists declared Ordinances; States did not Secede. “Revert requires an explanation on Talk.” None was made.
  • TVH amended a sentence here “Four years of intense combat, mostly in the South, ensued.” to “Four years of intense combat ensued, mostly in the South as Rebel-held territory shrank.”
  • REVERT TVH restored new Intro text (reverted CaptainEek revert) here as discussed on Talk.
  • TVH ACCEPTED discussion, amended new Intro text here 20:34 Sep 5 Paragraphing change only, ACCEPTED Maurice Magnus Talk contribution which describes Slavery Territory Expansion issue more concisely.
  • TVH ACCEPTED discussion, amended new Intro text here 12:39 Sep 6 to ACCEPT CaptainEek Talk contribution, dropping J.Davis quote, to the effect, Confederacy ceased, state histories became U.S. history.
  • REVERT Slatersteven revert entire TVH contribution here 12:55 Sep 6 “Resetting, the changes need consensus” – No discussion at Talk prior to disruption.
  • Revert Count: TVH revert 1, Other-Reverters 2. Slatersteven posts a Revert Warning on TVH editor page here with no explanation.
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
And read wp:npa, there was no tag teaming. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Here (but the way) is the diff for my revert of the 6th [[1]], and there is a reason "Resetting, the changesi need consneus". Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done The "tag-team" is expunged. Thank you for taking the time to itemize the posting you object to, so that I could then address the unintended mis-step on my part collegially, and in wp:good faith because I am given the opportunity to take specifically identified action now and for the future. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

1. The Four-Editor consensus as referenced at Talk and at my Article posts is the 28 August Talk Section: "Secession in the WP Editorial voice". Result: that Secessionists in each Confederate state had declared secession for their state. The stated Editorial rationale for adopting this terminology uniformly throughout the ACW article is that,
- (a) It is better Editorial practice and better historiography to name historic actors participating in an event (Unionists, Secessionists, voters) rather than unspecified abstractions (states),
- especially when the 'states' under discussion are made up of residents. The abstraction may be fairly represented when a super majority agrees, otherwise it is properly described as "divided". In the American democratic-republics in the 1860 states, the political will was expressed by the voting population, and 77% of the states in the C.S. Congress had neither a referendum, nor a Convention elected to decide that the political abstraction "state" might "secede". --- But Secessionists in those 10 states did declare Ordinances of Secession.
- (b) The WP Editorial voice at ACW should remain wp:neutral without signaling "Constitutionality" for one side or the other,
- (c) to align the ACW article to the terminology used at Confederate States of America.
2. IF there were a reason for your revert, why cannot that reason be disclosed at Talk before the Other-Revert-Duo reversion to allow for Editor discussion on the merits? The consensus was formed 28 August, you reverted 9-days later without discussion.
3. If I were at 2-reverts, which I do not believe I am, and which you see documented above without taking exception --- as the Other-Revert-Duo is at 2-reverts in blanking my contributions without commenting at Talk as provided for reasonable Editor discussion - posted in 6-parargraph Talk sections there ---,
How is it that any administrator at the time of a Revert Warning would not post wp:good faith linked reverts related to the warning -- so that there may be either (a) Editor-learning at the event, OR (b) opportunity for reasonable Editor discussion on the merits -- as a GOOD result?
4. Since the 28 August consensus at Talk, denied by the Article page disrupters without discussion at Talk, and since the reverters have made no articulation for the summary blanking of my several posts on more than one topic, nor have they made any reply before the Other-reverters-duo sent a Revert Warning, the Warning further posted without either a general or an itemized explanation,
5. So I am interested in initiating an RfC addressing the three elements of the 4-editor consensus unopposed by a like number at Talk. The stated Editorial rationale for adopting this terminology uniformly throughout the ACW article is that,
- (a) It is better Editorial practice and better historiography to name historic actors participating in an event (Unionists, Secessionists, voters) rather than unspecified abstractions (states),
- (b) The WP Editorial voice here should remain wp:neutral without signaling "Constitutionality" for one side or the other, and
- (c) The ACW article should align with the terminology used at Confederate States of America, "Secessionists declared secession for their State",
Example alternate phrasing: Secessionists in each State declared Ordinances of Secession, or At their Ordinances of Secession, Secessionists in each State assumed State offices and sought to withdraw the State delegation from the U.S. Congress.
Thank you for your patience. I'll get to it shortly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Sep 22

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thanks for the caution. As CaptainEek initiated an edit war by reverting my edit without replying to a 9-day post on Talk proposing changes to the Introduction, I trust a similar one is forwarded to CaptainEek (talk · contribs) and another to Slatersteven (talk · contribs) who both have proposed that I revert an Intro paragraph which has not been altered 'Sixth [last] new Intro paragraph', so there need no reverting one way or the other.
- Otherwise, TWO (2) Article edits have been made to conform to constructive discussion points made at Talk according to WP policy, one (1) by CaptainEek and one (1) by Maurice Magnus (talk · contribs).
At Talk section "Secession" in the WP editorial voice", a consensus was arrived at by four (4) Editors, Hog Farm (talk · contribs), MattMauler (talk · contribs), Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) and myself to avoid interjecting the Constitutionality of "state secession" into the article so as to maintain a wp:neutral editorial voice. The discussion accepted the formulation "declared secession" by Secessionists -- rather than the partisan "states seceded" then existing in the Introduction. That post has aged now for 10-days without a reply to take exception to the consensus.
I structured discussion of my revisions made |here on September 5 following two additional Talk sections without response. The first a 9-day (now 11) aged "The opening", my contributions at "Did the Southern states secede?" supported by Alenscottwalker, the most recent aged 10-days without a response.
Consistent with the 4-Editor consensus of August 28 that would bring the Intro at American Civil War in editorial alignment with Confederate States of America, I crafted a Talk section "Opening in the Intro with my proposed text, to which there has been no response for 2-days since my post to Article main space.
- The Talk section Second new Intro paragraph has no posted objection made by recent contributors: Maurice Magnus, CaptainEek, nor Slatersteven. The earlier text and the revised paragraph are the same for two-thirds of the passage: Decades of political controversy over slavery were brought to a head by the victory in the 1860 U.S. presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, ... so far so good - both revision texts are identical, old and new.
But then a wp:ERROR: Political controversy is said to have been brought to a head by Lincoln "who opposed the expansion of slavery." No, the political crisis came about NOT because of a Republican platform plank from 1956 and 1860, it had not done so in the previous 4-6 years because that was NOT the "tipping point" that brought the sectional crisis "to a head": That is ERROR.
The Secession Crisis comes about because. Fire-Eater Secessionists seized the political initiative in the South by force of arms in state after state during the “Secessionist Winter” 1860-61. And that is the only "innovation" in that passage, a correction of wp:ERROR which editors are permitted to do without consensus, but then there is no objection made the the correction, only a tag-team edit war by CaptianEek and Slatersteven.
- At discussion of Fourth new Intro paragraph, CaptainEek asserts that my revision is "bloated", so I invited him to underline WHERE the "bloat" is to be found in my 144-word revision compared to the 204word Intro paragraph previous.
Both versions account for the Western Theater, Eastern Theater, Emancipation Proclamation, the Union Blockade, New Orleans, the Mississippi River, Vicksburg, Antietam, Gettysburg, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. -- The new revision includes the surrender of North Carolina forces in 60 fewer words: there is no "bloating" in the new Intro revision.
As no Talk contributing Editor has found "bloating" yet, there is no reverting to be done at this "Fourth new Intro paragraph", until there is a substantial objection made, at which time, I will again incorporate suggestions as I have twice before on Talk and at the Article main space.
In the Fifth new Intro paragaph the lead sentence explains that the hard-fighting Confederate soldiers did not simple give-up, they were honorably parolled, and then restored their U.S. citizenship - a crucial key to the ending of regional conflict without protracted guerrilla warfare suggested by some of J.Davis lieutenants.
- Otherwise, there is another error corrected in the new revision: ERROR: "The war-torn nation then entered the Reconstruction era in a partially successful attempt to rebuild the country..." it is corrected by the new revision: Post-Civil War America became an industrial giant surpassing Europe in the Industrial Revolution by 1900, but at a social cost that engendered substantial labor unrest.[a]
- The revision that Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has continued in the tag-team EDIT WAR |here has now restored
(1) The previous partisan editorial voice stating, "states seceded", in contravention to the 4-Editor consensus of 28 August for wp:neutral WP voice in the article to conform to that adopted at Confederate States of America, replacing the Talk-agreed to formulation that Secessionists in various states "declared secession" or "adopted Ordinances of Secession" (style) 1860-1861.
(1) the wp:ERROR that a Republican Party platform plank 1856-1860 brought the crisis as newspaper print, not Fire-Eater Secessionists as historical actors,
(2) the counter-factual error that Reconstruction was only partially successful in rebuilding the country, when it led to corporate consolidation continentally and a booming Industrial Age, and
(3) speciously purporting that a 204 summary of military action replacing the concise 104-word revised summary by wrongly asserting the shorter summary is "bloated", without wp:good faith collegial editorial work by underlining said phrases at Talk as I invited all editors, and CaptainEek specifically, to do.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Reverting you is not an edit war, and edit war is reverting multiple times. Nor is bing right a valid reason (read wp:editwear please). Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:, please specify by link the three revert examples you refer to at American Civil War that justifies sending me a Revert Warning with your threat to ban me there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oct 22 (sic, 12)

I think you need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Thanks for the reference, good to keep in mind.
October 12.
1. I identify an error. 2. You ask for explanation.
3. I explain. 4. You ask for references. 5. I cite 3 references.
6. You make no reply concerning my references, Oct 12, and Oct 13 to date, although I have noted collegially you have not yet done so as a part of your legitimate participation in the discussion. If there is no objection to be made, then there is no need for you to object.
October 13.
7. You ask a rhetorical question without comment pro or con on provided references.
8. I answer your rhetorical question with supporting primary and scholarly resources to support the wp:error identification, and I add a collegial proposal for alternative language in the article to correct the identified wp:error that is confirmed by the additional references, and now shared on Talk.
9. On my Homepage, you suggest I read wp:bludgeon on October 13.  Done - TVH
- When (a) you ask a direct question, and (b) I give a direct answer to the question, that is a continuing discussion initiated by you, and NOT me "having the last word" referenced at wp:bludgeon, is it?
- :So far, so good, yes?TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
NO, as you are the only one arguing for your edit, it is now time to drop it as you do not have consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you please stop putting new comments above my replies? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example, so that I might comply with your expressed expectation of me? WHERE are "new comments [made] above User:Slatersteven replies", exactly? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I may have been mistaken, as you keep on posting walls of text, rather than just answering a straightforward question. As you have split one thread into two or three subsections, all discussing the same topic. As well as replying to multiple points in one post, when it is a reply to a one-line comment. So it is making following your replies very difficult (as its hard to see what you are replying to). All of these just seem to be the same points over and over again. So I apologize. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense. You initiate a new topic to create a wall of words, and I create a subsection for a named thread of discussion to directly answer each new question you posit in a brief direct way for each new facet you bring up.
So it is, your new twist in each case begins a new subsection, so that interested editors and admin reviewers can readily follow the multiple, simultaneous dialogues you are pursuing to avoid any refutation against any point in my posts.
I advocate for replacing "states readmitted", or "rejoining", using something like ""readmitted Congressional representation from previously Rebel-held states…". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked at ACW Talk?

When I try to post to ACW Talk at this time, my post is previewed on User:Slatersteven Home page. The entry at ACW is meant to be, ONCE AGAIN, an encyclopedic summary FAILS to get support from its scholarlycitation. WP Editorial policy requires that we choose the reliable wp:RS scholar over the encyclopedia.

At MR SLATER (or Lord Slatersteven as he is known in India). IS RETIRED AND ON A WIKI BREAK, HE WILL KEEP EDITING, BUT HE IS RETIRED, ITS TRUE SO IT IS, it says so in black and white!!!!



A personal statement Corona Virus

In the first time in our (as in Wikipedia) history we are actually living (and writing about) events that have a truly global scale that will have repercussions decades (if not 100's of years) from now. Every article we have related to this is far more important and significant than any article we have ever written before, both from a historical as well as contemporary viewpoint. What we say will have a very real impact on people living. We must all ensure that disinformation is not allowed to be expressed here (no matter the source, and even a hint of it must not be tolerated, this is too important), and we must expose it when it occurs. We must ensure that our readers are not only informed about the virus, but about those who would (and/or have) mislead them. Now we actually are important, in a way we have never been before. What we write here will be of historical importance, both as an example of how society dealt with this crisis, and a record of it.

If anything deserved and warranted the invocation of WP:IAR this is it, every article about this pandemic (and is about the only time I think it can ever really be invoked), This is not about civil POV pushing or fringe science or whatever else its invoked for. This is actually about (potentially) saving lives. If one person comes here thinking the "disinformationaists" knew what they were talking about and goes away with that opinion changed that is far more valuable than all the other fights over pseudoscience we have ever had here put together.

WE! are not important, how we deal with this one issue is. Nor are the feelings or reputations of the "disinformationists" if you spread lies that kill you deserve no consideration, and neither do your opinions.

white privilege is a term used to invoke white guilt, even in those that have never been bigoted.

I almost felt that a month ago. Then I was forced to face up to the fact that even though (In my youth) I was stopped on sus maybe twice A year I never feared the interaction might lead to my death. That is white privileged, not having to fear the police.

Personal profile

He is an "angloid" and proud of it.

Everything is about him, even when it is not, he knows you are all watching him, and knows that whatever you say must be about him (even if he is not named, and it could apply to half a dozen other users (and does)). Its not paranoia cause its true. Nor is he four years old, so does not act like one.

He must be stalking you, he must be, its the only answer.

Do not think he is on your side, if you have a side he is unlikely to be on it (see below). Even if he is a bollocks argument is still bollocks.

Steven Slater in his late 40’s and lives in southend Essex, UK. He is educated to college level, He owns a computer. He has read books. He has also seen some films. He is also an independent country (called Steve) but allows the UK to exercise all forms of authority to make life easier.

He belongs to no political parties, but supports Labour. He believes that political parties are fundamentally un-democratic, but supports Labour. He distrusts single issue protest groups (of any kind, but especially those who are so childish as to vandalize Wikipedia user pages, or indeed anyone who would go out of their way to break the project) and considers all forms of censorship and political restriction the anathema of Freedom (Expect telling outright lies). He believes you campaign against ideas not people (organisations are not people). He is (conversely) a Monarchist, but supports Labour . He is a member of Rochford Councils Public consultation group, but supports Labour. He does not care if who you think you are (copulating Nazi or otherwise) as long as you obey policy. By the same token he has no sens of humour that he is aware of, so does not get the joke.

He has never jumped off of a plane for any reason.

He has no religious affiliations. He is an agnostic. he is (however) one of the "Usual Suspects" as well as A filthy, repulsive degenerate buffoon (but then that sort of person would say that, even if as a "joke").

He does not have a Twitter account, and any posts there by anyone claiming to be him are fake.

He is unmarried, and has no children (to his knowledge), despite his filthy, repulsive degeneracy.

He is an SF (except for the work of Tom Kratman) and horror fan and plays with toy soldiers, and has read a book.

Tom Kratman has claimed that Mr Slater has,

despite his self-stated belief that one should campaign against ideas and not people, chosen to baselessly attack Tom Kratman over comments that Mr. Kratman made after becoming aware of a 2015 Hugo Award nomination.[1]

In response to Mr Slaters inclusion of accusations made by third parties on his bio page. Mr Kratman obviously thinks Mr Slaters opinions are of note. As well as being some Orwellian monster who controls Wikipedia [[2]].

The Daily Mail consider his opinions worthy of note [2].

He has no pets, none of whom are called Algenon. He does however own a Plush Cthulhu (which might explain his filthy, repulsive degeneracy, Iä! Shub-Niggurath! Iä! Shub-Niggurath!), which the Daily Mail does not consider of note.

He is not always 100% honest but he is an angel of fallacy. He has shown by logical argument that the sea is only alleged to be wet. He may be as dumb as some of you think he is.

Oh look... is it a stockbroker?

Is it a quantity Surveyor?

Is it a church warden?

No its article repair man, our hero.

If both sides are unhappy that means we have what we should have, balance

He may also be an unpaid agent for the neo-con industrial complex.

Pet Peeves

That notability and merit are not the same, but that is how it is.

People who do not get that everyone deserves ONE! chance.

wp:iar, if we can ignore them why have them, hell can I ignore IAR?

People who use odd or foreign characters to make it hard to write their user name.

People who claim they can speak a language how she is spoke.

People who know who they are.

People who do not STFU and manage to get me to argue myself around to the opposite viewpoint. If I am agreeing with you do not try and find fault.

Not being your enemy, so do not ask if I want to be one (most likely I do if you have to ask).

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia Edits". Wikipedia.
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html


Wikistuff

Edit war {{subst:uw-3rr}}

Newbie edit war {{subst:uw-ewsoft}}

Where to report vandals WP:AIV.

{{subst:alert|{{|blp}}}}

WP:AIV

Please do not think making legal threats against me will earn anything more than my utter contempt (see Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are), but go ahead, I could do with a laugh.

Wikipedia:Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ds/alert

Gs/talk notice|covid

Users who have asked me not to post on their talk pages

DarknessShines

Sitush

Fae (note to also call them they)


GizzyCatBella ‎


Nishidani


31.161.148.196

Samboy 01681

AmorLucis

EnlightenmentNow1792

Ecthelion83

CalfRaiser150

DO IT TO JULIA!!!’s link directly above, The Ohio History Central encyclopedic entry “[https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Reconstruction - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

What is this meant to be about? Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no talk page block mentioned on your block log, So what do you mean by "When I try to post to ACW Talk at this time, my post is previewed on User:Slatersteven Home page.", are you saying your posts are being redirected? Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy-editing American Revolutionary War Article

I am a new MILTHIST member interested in providing simple editing help, and this article was on the list of articles needing grammatical revision. My experience is primarily in World War I (as in, that's the conflict for which I have the most books). But this article seems like a fairly important article to need prose checked. It seems you are one of the primary contributors. Is there any way I can be of help? If there's a better place for me to carry on this discussion, do let me know. Orcanami; or the 🌊⬛🐬⬜🌊(talk) 16:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Orcanami: Welcome to the fray.
- MY PRIMARY INTEREST HERE is based on a career in high school history teaching. I would like to contribute to the Wikipedia Institute's goal of making well-sourced knowledge about U.S. history widely available to four categories of User: (1) the general U.S. reader, (2) the U.S. student researcher, (3) the general English-speaking reader, and (4) the English-as-a-second-language international reader.
Issue: many WP editors have little or no knowledge or concern for how an international reader may understand the parochial axe-grinding and hobby-horses of American schools of academic thought on a subject, never mind the various partisan and Neo-partisan angles that are introduced into the English (US) language Wikipedia.
REGARDING the ARW: As I followed the discussion over a few weeks on whether to include "signers of the Articles of Confederation" as Article "Founders" (I'm for it), along with my own topical research at the time, I was struck by how many of the "Signers of the Declaration" were additionally signers of other documents contended by multiple editors in various coalitions, for "Founder Document" candidates to add to the Chart-list of "Founders".
-In this "frame of reference" paradigm, I follow Pauline Maier to this extent: the chunks of historiography bracketing arbitrary year-spans for scholarly convenience are not the lives lived by historical actors in their contemporary time(s).
- Signers of the Declaration included SEVERAL of the signers (voters) in every one of the following documents that include the Archives’ “Foundations of Freedom” documents”:
(1) Continental Association, (2) Declaration of Independence, (3) Articles of Confederation, (4) US Constitution, (5) State Ratification Conventions, (6) First Congress (Bill of Rights Amendments roll call votes available online at the Library of Congress “American Memory”, tabs at each Congress’ House and Senate votes, debates).
Issue: Shall the Article “Founders” chart include the names of only those attending the beginning of the Second Continental Congress (regardless of their votes for the Declaration, since several of the No or Not-voting Delegates for Declaration signed or voted for one-or-more of the other 6 “Founding Documents”,
- HOWEVER, the narrative introduction to the Chart should be expanded to describe each of the “Signers-voters” events with links there, and then link the Chart column titles for the five (5) additional web pages that treats each sub-set of signatories for those five respective documents.
- in this way, the chart can be small enough to be comprehended easily on several User platforms . . . but extend a more comprehensive quick-access knowledge base for interested Users that is possible only so well by using Wikipedia article links, imho: U.S. Historical Biographies, State histories, Congress (Continental, Articles, Constitutional), Revolutionary Era, Constitutional Era, New Nation Era, depending on your high school essay assignment, or your graduate school of university study. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @TheVirginiaHistorian,
Apologies for the late reply. I've been working on familiarizing myself with Wikipedia so I can contribute better. I really appreciate your incredibly detailed account of American Colonial/Revolutionary War history in the context of Wikipedia. Catching up with Revolutionary War history has been tricky as I do not have a single book on the subject at the moment (I gave away 1776). The most I have on the subject is Chernow's biographical account of Alexander Hamilton. With that said, please let me know if you have recommendations for any books! I have a great library system near me. Orcanami; or the 🌊⬛🐬⬜🌊(talk) 14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet. The study is scheduled to end on Monday, January 9, 2023. Please note this is a bit later than the initial estimate specified in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
3,710 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Warhammer 40,000 (talk) Add sources
219 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Texas in the American Civil War (talk) Add sources
302 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Political status of Puerto Rico (talk) Add sources
3,462 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Ancient Rome (talk) Add sources
16 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Second Fiji expedition (talk) Add sources
26 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Liberalism in Greece (talk) Add sources
1,540 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Reconstruction era (talk) Cleanup
120 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B History of higher education in the United States (talk) Cleanup
189 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B History of religion in the United States (talk) Cleanup
306 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Second Barbary War (talk) Expand
346 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B History of taxation in the United States (talk) Expand
26 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C 1836–37 United States Senate elections (talk) Expand
222 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (talk) Unencyclopaedic
710 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Secular state (talk) Unencyclopaedic
237 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Entrepôt (talk) Unencyclopaedic
73 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Eisenstein integer (talk) Merge
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Abahlali baseMjondolo (membership & structures) (talk) Merge
22 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Reincarnationism (talk) Merge
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Lewis S. Owings (talk) Wikify
67 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Randolph family of Virginia (talk) Wikify
9 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Richard Beeman (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Anatoly Kuzovnikov (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Andrei Liforenko (talk) Orphan
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub CAAAN (talk) Orphan
148 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Soviet republic (system of government) (talk) Stub
85 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Mandate (politics) (talk) Stub
40 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Wove paper (talk) Stub
17 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Exchange Hotel (Richmond, Virginia) (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Christine Stansell (talk) Stub
22 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Liberalism and centrism in Sweden (talk) Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list

Hi TheVirginiaHistorian! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello

And I hope all is well. You've been gone for awhile without a "See you later"-type notice, so of course some of us have concern. Maybe check out the discussion at Gwillhickers talk page (one of the pings that you've received). Thanks, and please at least send a one-word edit to let us know all is well. You are missed, both as a pivotal editor in Wikipedia's American founding collection and as a fellow Wikipedian. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Yes, I was among those who was wondering. TVH, your expertise is missed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive_8&oldid=1179289548"