User talk:Twelsht/Archive8

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Ohio Newsletter

The WikiProject Ohio Newsletter

Issue III - June 2008

From the editor: This is the third edition of the WikiProject Ohio newsletter. If you have any project announcements feel free to drop them by the NewsDesk. It's request that you watchlist our talk page; so you can chime in on current discussions. Have a great June! The Ohio Portal The maintainers of the Ohio Portal are looking to get it to featured status. They would like to ask all project members to help improve it any way they can. What needs to be done most is the supplying of selected articles and images. Getting the Project Moving WikiProject Ohio as an entity doesn't have as much action as other state projects. For this reason it has been proposed that the inactive WikiProject Ohio Townships be added as our taskforce. There is a !poll going on at WT:OH and your opinion is essential in the matter! Stepshep has also proposed sending an invite to everyone in Category:Wikipedians in Ohio with an invite to join the project. If you are already a member you would not receive the notice of course. Once again, please note your opinion on the project talkpage. Selected Article: Central Avenue Historic District (Dayton, Ohio) The Central Avenue Historic District is a nationally recognized historic district located at 201 to 338 Central Avenue in Dayton, Ohio. It consists of late 19th and 20th Century Revival-style houses as well as late Victorian-style houses, which were all originally single-family residences. On December 16, 1982, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. Each month a new Ohio related stub is the selected article. If you have a new stub created feel free to nominate it at the NewsDesk. Article Assessment Reedy Bot and ShepBot are currently hard at work tagging all of the Ohio articles. We may need to have an assessment drive when the bots are finished. Think of it as a late spring cleaning. Please note your opinions on the project talkpage if you would be interested in helping! 'Over 15,000 articles have been tagged with {{OH-Project}} We have 5,000 articles that need to be assessed for class! Article Info Good Article Nominees, FAR, FLC List of Governors of Ohio was nominated for featured list status. Teh result was promote. Bruce Johnson (politician) underwent a featured article review. The result was demote. William Henry Harrison underwent a GAN The result was promote. Paul Tibbets underwent a GAN. It is currently undergoing review. Columbus Blue Jackets underwent a GAN It is currently undergoing review. Articles for Deletion Results Afd W. S. McIntosh Memorial Leadership Award was nominated at Afd. The result was Delete Homer E. Woodling and Robert F. Busbey were nominated at Afd. The result was Keep All Ohio High School Conferences were nominated at Afd. The result was no consensus keep. There is an effort to improve these articles here. Ohio Barnstar of Merit If you know of a Wikipedian who has contributed a good deal of effort to Ohio articles feel free to award the new Ohio Barnstar of Merit by placing the following code on their user talkpage. {{subst:The Ohio Barnstar of Merit|message}} Article Importance Scheme A new article importance scheme has been proposed at the assessment talk page. Please comment on the propsed system. Ohio NHLs Tabulated The 25 of Ohio's 69 National Historic Landmarks that were red-links all got articles this month, as part of a WP:NRHP drive to finish beginning the 2,430 or so NHL articles needed for nation-wide coverage. WP:OHIO members Stepshep and Sanfranman59 were busy. Contributors Stepshep, Clariosophic, & Doncram

This newsletter is delivered by bot to all project members of WikiProject Ohio. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter in the future or would like to receive it in a different format, please note this in the appropriate section at the NewsDesk. Thank you, §tepshep

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Specify level of copy-editing

Hi Twelsht

Could you please specify your level of copy-editing for the military history project here.

These are the levels:

1. Copy-edit lite: basic proof-reading, spellchecking, punctuation.
2. English variant conversion: for example, from American English to Commonwealth English, or vice versa.
3. Naturalising: copy-edit for editors whose English is fluent but not perfect.
4. FAC prose copy-edit: flow, structure, elegance.
5. FAC technical copy-edit: MoS-compliance for dashes, hard spaces, numbers, measurement conversion.

Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue I – July 2008

"A home opener is always exciting, no matter if it's home or on the road." - Yogi Berra News and announcements Welcome to the first Baseball WikiProject Newsletter, dated Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The Article Improvement Drive has been revived. Check it out! The Outreach department is in the works, please contribute your ideas! Featured content In the past month, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to Featured Article status: Art Houtteman 1926 World Series St. Louis Cardinals seasons Philadelphia Phillies seasons List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 79th MLB All-star Game is scheduled for this evening. The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round. From the Editors Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did. In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29

--  jj137 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner

Hi. I had noticed that you were instrumental in developing this article and taking it to featured article status. Since that time, as you've probably seen, a lot was done to it. I finally did manage to deter the contributor from adding anything else to it, but frankly, right now, it's got a huge set of problems. I did tell him that the formatting and size and other issues was jeopardizing its FA status. It's nearly doubled in size from when you went to FA four months ago, and my own opinion is that much of it needs to come out. What the editor did was develop a Warner Bros. studio history and basically insert it into all the brothers' articles. I started to contact you about it, and saw that you hadn't been on Wikipedia for three months, so I started to address it myself.

I had spoken with Rossrs not long ago about what might be done with it and to date, he hasn't given his opinion. Mine was to cut the bulk of the studio history, which really mostly belongs in that article, and take this one back down to a manageable size. I had started working through on a mess of odd citation formats and tried to make them meaningful and logical. If you'd look at this diff, you may be able to see what I was working on. The odd reference formats, the same reference in one sentence up to three times, bare web citations... I was getting a headache so I stopped for a couple days. I did cut over 5000 bytes from it by working almost exclusively on the references. I am very glad to see you back and trying to address some of it, if you need my help, please let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that I didn't come across this earlier on. There had been issues with the editor on other articles, one of which was Rudolph Valentino. I came across this after I saw some odd changes made on the Bette Davis article, which is also a featured article, that were made from the Warners book this editor read. At that time, it was a problem with how the reference was being formatted and it became a larger issue. I asked another editor with whom I often work to help me, but it became contentious and we both basically gave up, except for my concern over the Jack Warner FA status.

I'm not inclined to bring this up for an FA review at this point, and I'm hopeful you can work it out. On whatever you choose to cut out, I'll back you. When I looked at the history, I saw that there were problems coming up at the time of the article gaining FA status, and I'm not entirely sure I know why they didn't put the review on hold at the time since the editor was still tampering with it. As you could probably tell, I wasn't trying to trim it down at the time you came back, I was only trying to fix the overt spelling/grammar errors and cleaning up the odd citations. I will keep looking in, and please, if you need me to do anything, let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

I just noticed you are back at it. Welcome back! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Daysleeper! From here on, I'm going to try to balance Wikipedia with real-life responsibilities so I don't have to disappear every few months. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...
	Hello Twelsht, Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief. Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying. Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC) This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government. You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace. Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.	Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

Billy the Kid

Whats with the deletion of detail? The Lincoln county war was probably the defining event in his life yet you have reverted the details to make it read as a summary for an article rather than "the" article. This exclusion of facts results in the article making false implications. For example Morton and Baker are presented as undisputed murders when there is no evidence for this no matter how likely it was. You deleted the fact that the soldiers were Buffalo soldiers which implies to a reader they were not. The fight in Lincoln now reads as if only the regulators were involved and was much smaller than it actually was. etc etc etc. The worst is you also seem to be relying on a single source instead of finding what historians believe. Wayne (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi Twelsht, as you are the one who copyedited the Cold War article, may I ask you to make a final verification of its prose? We would like to put it as soon as possible under another FAC, and we wan't to make sure we won't have the same problems as last time (the article failed the first FAC mainly because of its prose). Thanks a lot and best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you to have a look over the "Second Cold War" (1979–85) section, as recently there were some discussions upon it. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a proposed new version here and discussion here. Cheers, Dhatfield (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner

I have restored my changes to the Jack Warner page. You had reverted back to information that is either incorrect or unsubstantiated. My changes were carefully considered and based on primary sources. The sources you've used are not as much concerned about presenting facts (or even educated guesses) as they are about repeating heresay. Undoubtedly some things in these books are based on oral history within the Warner family, but oral history is not a reliable source, and from what I've read personally, the authors don't qualify their statements. They don't say "perhaps this happened" or "according to oral history." Unless Abraham Warner wrote an autobiography, we can never prove his thoughts and motivations, as well as some things he is claimed to have done. It makes for an interesting read, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This makes the article misleading and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. None of this is about any personal investment in this article. I just take issue with how much misinformation is repeated on the internet, and Wikipedia is a well-used source. It should be as accurate as possible. The format change of the citations is not an issue with me, but I didn't see that they were necessary, so I didn't modify them after I made the revision. Declair (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

regarding Jack Warner

In editing my talk page, I see a response by you there that for some reason doesn't appear on the actual page (at least not on my computers), so I didn't read it before posting the above message. I disagree with you on several points. Most importantly, I don't think the sources you give fall into the Wikipedia's description of "reliable sources." A book issued by an established publisher doesn't necessarily make it a credible source. "Don't believe everything you read" comes to mind. You say "none of them is treated as "God's truth" in the context of the article. They are claims and interpretations that were published. Not all of them agree." You don't present them as anything but fact - no qualifying statements, as I've mentioned above. If they disagree, how do they disagree, and more importantly, why? As for being a major contributor to the article - yes, that's commendable, but there are many people out here who are experienced and well qualified to write scholarly articles. I know what the latter is and isn't, and it is the spirit of Wikipedia to have a community of editors, not just certain editors. Lastly, my citation formatting is conventional and acceptable. I haven't investigated whether or not Wikipedia requires specific formatting for its cite, so if mine were contrary to that, I wasn't aware of it. Declair (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get a sense of competition in these publications. It is my impression that the writers were repeating things without fact checking (which is common in books from major publishing houses that are not concerned about scholarship). There are definately instances where publications rely heavily on earlier ones regarding this family. The books I have read are in the "creative writing" mode, in varying degrees, since that sells more books. Conflicting information may be purposeful, may be due to poor research or bad copy editing, but that is beside the point when there is a better source for the information. I'm not going to challenge some of the unsubstantiated things, which I had done with my initial editing changes. I am particularly concerned about things like the immigration information, the Yiddish names, the proper places of origin and the number of children. The most credible source that I know of for this is the one I cite. If I have missed or misread something else, I stand corrected (but would like to know about it). You say "we're not in a position to offer opinions on the reliability of one source over another." There are standards for scholarly writing. Academic journals, for instance, require it. If there are no footnotes citing primary sources to back up information or educated guesses made after careful review of those sources, it isn't good for encyclopedic content. You may have to dig deeper to find the good sources, if they exist, but the effort should be made due to how important and prominent Wikipedia has become. I can't imagine the folks at Wikipedia would disagree with that. My reading of the site's guidelines clearly supports what I am saying. The article I cite on the Warner family is based on primary evidence, with the sources cited. This does challenge information in book form. I'm not saying you should have been aware of that article, but now that you do, you don't seem to take it as seriously as the books. I'm trying to understand your approach to this. Do you not agree that sources that present evidence of their statements are more reliable than conflicting ones that don't? You said you know that not all books are credible, but you still favor the ones on the Warner family. Is it because they were put out by large publishing companies? They are still in the "creative writing" mode, to varying degrees. Their intent is to tell an interesting story, not to present something in documentary form (again, unless I've misread something). I rewrote the particular paragraph that deals with the things in question but deleted very little of it (a different edit from the first one I made). I think this is a reasonable compromise. I'm not invested in changing what you've written out of some sense of superiority - I just think this particular part of the Warner family history has suffered from a lot of misinformation, and what I've written will help correct this. I get the feeling from your messages that you want to have control over this article, which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. "I welcome any contributions that will help to improve it." Isn't it Wikipedia that welcomes input from the community as long as it adheres to their standards? I believe mine do. If Wikipedia disagrees with me, that is their prerogative, but no one editor or contributor has proprietary rights over these articles. If you have a problem with my changes you need to contact the site about it rather than dismiss or delete them. 69.86.119.63 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)