Administrators or Whoever deleted and redirected from The Writings of J Samuel Walker

edit

There is good important data which is now lost which took a long time to accumulate. The least that could have been done would have been to have pasted into this page.

If possible please contact me or paste that data here so it does not have to be rebuilt from scratch. ...


assume good faith

errata for incorporation into main

edit

Reviewed by Roger Chapman (American Culture Studies Program, Bowling Green State University) Published on H-US-Japan (November, 1999)


2

edit

Citations to follow they are shutting this place down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talkcontribs) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this should have been a stub proposal but it seemed like a good idea to get the ball rolling someway or another. We are shutting down for holiday season so if the page languishes to the point that it gets deleted I would appreciate if someone paste the article onto my page so I don't have to start from scratch.

The original inception of this stub or proposal was to do justice to the good faith of the people who set up the Hiroshima debate. IMHO they interjected a somewhat incorrect opinion by Walker who overemphasized one aspect of the very complex Hiroshima matter.

Since I deleted one little item I thought it would be appropriate to express my concurrence with their high regard for Walker by proposing this page. I did that by starting the page. It will not be able to evolve as rapidly as I would wish due to the inter-semester layoff.

My personal laptop happens to have fried also and so I was planning like the rest of the world to take a break between Dec 24 and Jan 1. If there is a world of deletion prone editors I would appreciate if they would consider starting the Walker article with added content. I think his work is pretty worthwhile and it is better to get the ball rolling. What harm is there in that? At what point does administrative deletion merge over into a form of vandalism in its own right???

CHRISTMAS SABBATTICAL

edit

I'd appreciate if this page is not NUKED during the intersemester time period. I know there is a lot of issues with it and it is currently the writings of Walker not a personal biography. But the topic is important enough. Let it be.

Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.


That is the problem with all of this destructive administrative blasting. It gets old fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talkWikidgood (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)contribs) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

agenda

edit

add citations

add bio info reformat


Easy does it Peace Dove

edit

Net change: citations added and Citation tophat replaced with broader clean up tophat

edit

"Tophatting broader cleanup request in lieu of citations; no contentious material, old tophat not specific; also citations are in and pending...cleanup can include more citations too"

This does not imply the citations are finished.

There is nothing contentioous or potentially libelous thus the old top hat is not specific enough.

Now that there are citations it is...

all of the self justification I have had to waste time on this week has cut my constructive concrete factual content waaaay down...Wikidgood (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't get this split box quite right I need a main article box anyway :( SOS

edit

Citations number exceeds two more prominent historians

edit

Robert WIstrich 4 note Thomas Kuhn (spelling) 8 notes this page 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidgood (talkcontribs) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply